A hypothetical debate about cures and vaccines

Let's present a hypothetical scenario in this time of pandemic and fear because of a viral outbreak.

Let's introduce Bob.

Bob is a law abiding, good natured, forty year old white male.

Bob volunteers to be a human experiment for the COVID-19 study and let's himself be injected with said virus and his blood studied.

As it turns out, Bob's blood is THE cure for COVID-19. This man's blood will save millions and be the doorway to a new era of cures and vaccines.

Bob is also a capitalist. Bob wants his blood to be bought and sold so that he can make a profit.

Public outcry emerges. People are enraged and hostile. News media covers the case at hand.

People tell Bob that Jonas Salk, the man who invented the vaccine for polio, was asked "Who owns this patent?", and Salk replied, "Well, the people I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"

Bob says "I am not Salk nor the Sun. I want to make money from my blood that is the cure."

Martin Shkreli, the man who charged $750 for the Daraprim pill, was labeled as "the most hated man in America" because of his business ideals, but was still within his legal rights.

Can Bob be ordered to involuntarily surrender his blood?

Can Bob patent the cure? Should he be allowed to? Is this ethical? Where does capitalism have a line drawn in the sand?

Can Bob be government ordered to not do what he wished with his own body? Is this similar with women who want an abortion but are told that they're not allowed to?

What is your overall opinion? Even if the price weren't astronomically high, can or should a cure for a global virus be sold or charged?

As far as profit?

From a business perspective, no, Bob should not profit.

From an individual perspective, Bob should be compensated by the Federal Government for his R&D and time. $350K a year, with a minimum of $350k being paid out, sounds fair. And he should get a guarantee that he can keep his job when he gets his blood taken ever 3 days.

Originally posted by dadudemon
As far as profit?

From a business perspective, now, Bob should not profit.

Can you elaborate, please? That's what I'm curious about.

Originally posted by Impediment
Can you elaborate, please? That's what I'm curious about.

Profit implies a business is being run if you are talking about profit from a business perspective.

From an indivudal perspedtive and the more loosely used definition of "profit", meaning, 'Should Bob be compensated for his time and blood?', yes, Bob should profit.

Should Bob higher a team of lawyers, start an LLC, have all dealings with him and his blood be handled through that team of lawyers, get a business Tax ID, business license if needed, file taxes, offer shares (private), and allow people to invest and benefit from his blood?

No. Bob should not do this. Can Bob do this? Yes, under the current system in the US, Bob can do this.

I like that answer. I agree, to an extent.

What about people/the public who would counter with "How can you accept money for what you can give to the world? How are you able to make money when you can be a good human and let it be given to the world without you making even one dollar from sick people?"

If Bob volunteered, he would have likely signed a waiver and any research pertaining to his blood (ie cure) would be the property of the biomedical corporation who did the testing. So Bob would be shit out of luck

On a personal level, I think Bob should be rewarded though for potentially saving millions, especially if the pharmaceutical company will be profiting off the drug.

If he volunteers, he automatically waivers certain rights, but I do believe whatever group that uses him, should compensate him for life, and at least gave 3 generations downs compensations. I say 3 generations, because on Fort Hood, if you were to kill a cow, you have to pay for that cow, and 3 generations of said cows descendants.

Now if he was the one to find the cure, experimented on himself, then he has every rights to tell everyone to **** up.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Profit implies a business is being run if you are talking about profit from a business perspective.

From an indivudal perspedtive and the more loosely used definition of "profit", meaning, 'Should Bob be compensated for his time and blood?', yes, Bob should profit.

Should Bob higher a team of lawyers, start an LLC, have all dealings with him and his blood be handled through that team of lawyers, get a business Tax ID, business license if needed, file taxes, offer shares (private), and allow people to invest and benefit from his blood?

No. Bob should not do this. Can Bob do this? Yes, under the current system in the US, Bob can do this.

Hire*

Originally posted by Impediment
I like that answer. I agree, to an extent.

What about people/the public who would counter with "How can you accept money for what you can give to the world? How are you able to make money when you can be a good human and let it be given to the world without you making even one dollar from sick people?"

And some have done that.

Your exact scenario exists.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/11/health/james-harrison-blood-donor-retires-trnd/index.html

James Harrison is a saint and saved so so many babies' lives. All donated.

But I still think someone like Bob should be compensated for their time and blood. Something extra that we can give him. I would start a go-fund-me for this Bob character just so he could get paid for saving lives.

Originally posted by Impediment
I like that answer. I agree, to an extent.

What about people/the public who would counter with "How can you accept money for what you can give to the world? How are you able to make money when you can be a good human and let it be given to the world without you making even one dollar from sick people?"

I'd reply: "I will donate to the world, as soon as the medical industry does"

It's nice and all that people donate their blood to the Red Cross, but isn't there an entire industry chain that makes big bucks off of getting that blood to needed recipients?

Yeah, there's expenses involved in taking it, testing it, holding it, administering it ect, but lets not pretend they're only recovering costs. Far from it.

Originally posted by Impediment
Can Bob be ordered to involuntarily surrender his blood?

No.

Originally posted by Impediment
Can Bob patent the cure?

Yes.

Originally posted by Impediment
Should he be allowed to?

Yes.

Originally posted by Impediment
Is this ethical?

Yes. Society is only interested in restricting liberty to limit harm. Altruism, while a great kindness, is not a requirement. Compelled goodness is not goodness at all.

Originally posted by Impediment
Where does capitalism have a line drawn in the sand?

Where the people in a given society decide.

Originally posted by Impediment
Can Bob be government ordered to not do what he wished with his own body?

No.

Originally posted by Impediment
Is this similar with women who want an abortion but are told that they're not allowed to?

Yes. Government cannot force one to use his life to sustain the life of another. That is true whether it is gestating a fetus, or donating blood, tissues, or organs.

Originally posted by Impediment
Even if the price weren't astronomically high, can or should a cure for a global virus be sold or charged?

In life, you can pay on the front end, or you can pay on the back end, but one way or another, you are going to pay.

Originally posted by Impediment
Let's present a hypothetical scenario in this time of pandemic and fear because of a viral outbreak.

Let's introduce Bob.

Bob is a law abiding, good natured, forty year old white male.

Bob volunteers to be a human experiment for the COVID-19 study and let's himself be injected with said virus and his blood studied.

As it turns out, Bob's blood is THE cure for COVID-19. This man's blood will save millions and be the doorway to a new era of cures and vaccines.

Bob is also a capitalist. Bob wants his blood to be bought and sold so that he can make a profit.

Public outcry emerges. People are enraged and hostile. News media covers the case at hand.

People tell Bob that Jonas Salk, the man who invented the vaccine for polio, was asked "Who owns this patent?", and Salk replied, "Well, the people I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"

Bob says "I am not Salk nor the Sun. I want to make money from my blood that is the cure."

Martin Shkreli, the man who charged $750 for the Daraprim pill, was labeled as "the most hated man in America" because of his business ideals, but was still within his legal rights.

Can Bob be ordered to involuntarily surrender his blood?

Can Bob patent the cure? Should he be allowed to? Is this ethical? Where does capitalism have a line drawn in the sand?

Can Bob be government ordered to not do what he wished with his own body? Is this similar with women who want an abortion but are told that they're not allowed to?

What is your overall opinion? Even if the price weren't astronomically high, can or should a cure for a global virus be sold or charged?

I think it would be fair for Bob to be compensated for his time and risk to his health. I also think Bob would be wealthy regardless of direct compensation from the cure due to media coverage, book deals, interviews, etc.

In the USA, I don't think Bob could be forced into anything for free, or otherwise, per the 4th, 5th and 9th Amendment. The US Government would have to declare a national emergency or maybe invoke eminent domain to forcefully hold Bob or take his property.

This would be better if it was posted on debate.org or pollster

Bob in op needs to be renamed Rob

It works better like that

Originally posted by dadudemon
As far as profit?

From a business perspective, no, Bob should not profit.

From an individual perspective, Bob should be compensated by the Federal Government for his R&D and time. $350K a year, with a minimum of $350k being paid out, sounds fair. And he should get a guarantee that he can keep his job when he gets his blood taken ever 3 days.