[sarah]

yes but cost is a major problem for some people. The question also is, if a drug company knew of a cheap, patent free drug, would it develop it? say like aspirin??? and yet obviously aspirin is profitable or is it just a brand name identification???. the fact that some older drugs are being used for totally different uses is also interesting. Because drugs are connected to survival, cost becomes a very touchy subject for patients. Genetech didn't want to pursue Herceptin and stopped funding it, Dr. Slamon had to get outside funding to finish his work and then Genetech profited enormously from it so again costs came into that, what if he hadn't found outside money? most of us on this site would be dead. And then there's the fact that Medicare can't negotiate for the price it pays for drugs unlike the rest of the world, is this morally right. cost where life is concerned is a very sensitive issue. If I had lived in the US, there is no doubt in my mind that I would have not been allowed to continue on Herceptin for 6 years, again cost enters a right to life decision. very troubling. As patients I think we would all like to see the price of drugs become cheaper and more available while understanding the risks and costs involved in creating these drugs. But when it's a question of life and death, it becomes a difficult subject when wherever you can afford a drug becomes a survival issue.