• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

Patents and healthcare thing (1 Viewer)

Nebuchanezzar

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
7,536
Location
Camden
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Yeah so like, there's this breast cancer detection thing that a company owns (apparently), and now they're gonna assert their right to only allow breast cancer detections to be done for $2100 at their Melbourne laboratory, despite it being done all around now and presumably saving many lives.

Fair or not fair? Should we amend the laws to prevent this or not? If so how. DISCUSS! :apig:

www.smh.com.au said:
WOMEN will no longer be able to go to a public hospital to find out whether they have inherited a genetic mutation that causes breast cancer, after the company that holds the licence to the gene patents set a deadline of November 6 for other laboratories to cease testing.

This would force testing for the genes - widely used by women with a family history of the disease - into Genetic Technologies Ltd's own Melbourne laboratory, at $2100 per test.

The controversial move marks the first time in Australia that a company has enforced its proprietary rights over the human body's genetic code, which some argue is inherently publicly owned. It could trigger an urgent challenge to the validity of patent laws.

The Liberal senator Bill Heffernan said yesterday the move would stifle research and increase health care costs. "The question is, do we agree with the principle of patenting and restricting research on naturally occurring genes?"

Graeme Suthers, medical adviser to the Cancer Council Australia, said the law should be revised. "As a society we have to bite that bullet," he said. "It is essential that Australian families can access testing of genes [through public hospitals]."

The genes in question - BRCA1 and BRCA2 - are implicated in up to 10 per cent of breast cancers. They confer a greatly increased risk of developing the disease, and at a younger than usual age.

The chairwoman of the Breast Cancer Action Group, Janet Green, said testing allowed women to make "an informed decision about prophylactic surgery or certain treatments," and should not depend on ability to pay.

But Michael Ohanessian, the chief executive of Genetic Technologies, insisted the change would benefit patients, guaranteeing a four-week maximum to complete a test.

"In 2005 some laboratories were averaging 11 months. Anyone in government would be hard-pressed to defend that … I believe [the laboratories] are all sub-scale and I believe there would be benefits to taxpayer funds and women's health."

He said the $2100 fee was similar to other laboratories - about 10 nationwide. He believed complaints were motivated by "a certain emotiveness when people think about patents in the field of genetics," and "an ideological objection to the private sector".

The company, which is listed on the stock exchange, licenses the genes exclusively from Myriad Genetic Laboratories in the US.

Luigi Palombi, an expert in patent law at the Australian National University, said state or federal governments could allow laboratories to continue testing under a crown-use provision in the Patents Act, but he was unaware of this ever being used.

Dr Palombi said patent law refered only to inventions, not discoveries, and he believed a federal court would find against Genetic Technologies. But the issue had never been tested, and he was not aware of a body that could afford to mount the case.

A Government spokesman said the matter was being investigated by the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission.

COUNTING THE COST

- Breast cancer affects about 13,000 Australian women a year.

- Between 5 and 10 per cent of breast cancer is linked to BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations.

- Women with a gene mutation have up to a 92 per cent risk of breast or ovarian cancer by 70, and can get cancer younger.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/lifeands...st-cancer-tests/2008/10/22/1224351351118.html
 

HalcyonSky

Active Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Messages
1,187
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
patents and like so theres this healthcare thing and theres like also like this breast cancer detection thing so like patents is it fair?

I dunno man.
 

nikolas

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
541
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Ugh that's retarded, you cant own a way to test things...
 

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
The genes in question - BRCA1 and BRCA2 - are implicated in up to 10 per cent of breast cancers. They confer a greatly increased risk of developing the disease, and at a younger than usual age.
See this is where I get the shits with the media.

These genes don't cause breast cancer. BRCA1 and 2 are cancer metastasis suppresors, their role when fully functional is to supress tumours. When there is an inherited mutation, they don't cause cancer, they just don't fulfil their role as suppressors.

Thus, you're more susceptible to the cancer, but this is dependent on a whole lot of other shit. When they say stuff like that, the average idiot will be like 'LOLZ OMG I BETTER GET TESTED FOR THIS GENE SO I WONT GET CANCER LOLZ!~'

So even if you have the mutations in the genes, it doesn't mean you'll get cancer. Just like if you don't have the mutations it wont mean you won't get cancer.

Rely less on this test, it doesn't actually prove anything. If you have a family history of breast cancer, get regular breast checks. If you don't have a family history, get regular breast check ups anyway. FFS.
 

d3vilz

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
564
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Uni Grad
2013
personally i believe this lab is acting in an unethical manner.
i don't give a shit if they hold a patent for this screening method/technology.
what is more important to the company, money or saving the life of many women???
if they force other clinics or labs from using this lifesaving screening method, let's hope that they get shamed & get a bad reputation and go bankrupt.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
725
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Patenting the genome is fucking retarded; fairly sure there's a cuntload of prior art.

Not a fan of patents in any capacity.
 

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
d3vilz said:
personally i believe this lab is acting in an unethical manner.
i don't give a shit if they hold a patent for this screening method/technology.
what is more important to the company, money or saving the life of many women???
if they force other clinics or labs from using this lifesaving screening method, let's hope that they get shamed & get a bad reputation and go bankrupt.
No, for fucks sake.

I don't agree with patents over genes, but I agree even less with perpetuating hysteria.

BRCA 1 mutations were identified in 9/124 (7%) women where there was a family history of breast cancer without ovarian cancer, 10/57 (18%) where family members had bilateral breast cancer, 28/60 (47%) with family members with both breast and ovarian cancer or a single member with both cancers.
This suggests that even when subjects are selected from families with a strong history of breast cancer only about 7 in 100 will be found to have BRCA 1 mutations. So more than 9 out of 10 tests would be negative, with 10% or fewer positive, if screening for BRCA1 mutations were instituted. The implication is that BRCA1 mutations may account for fewer than half of hereditary cases of breast cancer, not much higher figures suggested previously (see Bandolier 18 ). Routine screening, even where there is a family history, will be wasteful in that it will require enormous back up, both scientific and medical, including counselling, to undertake responsibly. Furthermore, women who do not have a mutation have to be cautioned to prevent a false sense of security, because, in the striking words of the article, "negative tests are not truly negative". That is, women with negative results for BRCA1 mutation are still at risk of cancer.
I can't agree more with this article. Yeah it's great that we have identifed these genes, but they don't actually, with 100% proof, determine whether you'll get breast cancer. Consequently I think people would end up relying on this test too much, and when the media beats the whole 'omg all these women will die' stick, people get lulled into a false sense of security.
 
Last edited:

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Inject more girls at birth with chromium IV and V.
 

KFunk

Psychic refugee
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
3,323
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
katie tully said:
Rely less on this test, it doesn't actually prove anything. If you have a family history of breast cancer, get regular breast checks. If you don't have a family history, get regular breast check ups anyway. FFS.
Clinical breast exams are of dubious benefit (evidence is not perfect but indicates litte to no effect on population breast cancer mortality) and regular mammography in low risk groups is poor use of the healthcare dollar. BRCA1/2 mutations justify increased frequency of mammography and may even lead a woman to consider prophylactic mastectomy (given that a > 1 in 2 lifetime risk of breast cancer is extraodinatrily high).

A positive result means a lot. Though I agree with you that a negative result is of little, possibly even detrimental, value.
 

nick3157

Not Actually A Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
166
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
drug companies own patents on everything. when a new drug or in this case, a test is developed, that company has exclusive rights to its manufacture and sale for x years (depends on what it is but it could be up to 15 years im pretty sure).
their first priority is to recoup the costs they incurred from developing the drug/test/whatever. remember they have to do this and be profitable whilst they still have a monopoly.
if the drug/test is worthy enough for everybody to get (like gardasil) then the government will subsidise it. if not, then the company will charge the public whatever it likes. remember it is the governments responsibility to provide healthcare - not private companies.
if this test is so important, then get up the government for not subsidising it. the government will whinge and moan to get out of paying for it but its their responsibility.
 

Nebuchanezzar

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
7,536
Location
Camden
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
katie tully said:
See this is where I get the shits with the media.

These genes don't cause breast cancer. BRCA1 and 2 are cancer metastasis suppresors, their role when fully functional is to supress tumours. When there is an inherited mutation, they don't cause cancer, they just don't fulfil their role as suppressors.

Thus, you're more susceptible to the cancer, but this is dependent on a whole lot of other shit. When they say stuff like that, the average idiot will be like 'LOLZ OMG I BETTER GET TESTED FOR THIS GENE SO I WONT GET CANCER LOLZ!~'

So even if you have the mutations in the genes, it doesn't mean you'll get cancer. Just like if you don't have the mutations it wont mean you won't get cancer.

Rely less on this test, it doesn't actually prove anything. If you have a family history of breast cancer, get regular breast checks. If you don't have a family history, get regular breast check ups anyway. FFS.
I think you might have missed the point of the thread dude.
 

ASNSWR127

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
478
Location
left of centre
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
No

Health care should never become an 'industry'

Profit should never come before pt care.

Something is seriously wrong in this case...
 

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
KFunk said:
Clinical breast exams are of dubious benefit (evidence is not perfect but indicates litte to no effect on population breast cancer mortality) and regular mammography in low risk groups is poor use of the healthcare dollar. BRCA1/2 mutations justify increased frequency of mammography and may even lead a woman to consider prophylactic mastectomy (given that a > 1 in 2 lifetime risk of breast cancer is extraodinatrily high).

A positive result means a lot. Though I agree with you that a negative result is of little, possibly even detrimental, value.
I don't disagree that they're a valuable test, but I can't help but think the media places too much emphasis on these technologies as being completely diagnostic.

To me, the common man isn't going to completely appreciate what the test is detecting and what the results mean. I over heard a conversation today where a woman was telling another that BRCA1 and 2 cause cancer, and now they won't be able to access a technology that will tell them if they'll develop cancer. When the media beats on about endangering lives, people forget that there are countless other factors that contribute to breast cancer, and that the tests don't determine either way whether they'll definitely get cancer.

Of course you can't argue with the statistics, there is no disagreement that women with the mutations aren't more susceptible to cancer.
 

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Nebuchanezzar said:
I think you might have missed the point of the thread dude.
Whatever fucker, it wouldn't be a BOS thread if it didn't go off on a tangent.

ITT: Neb posts pictures of his breast exam.
 
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
4,317
Location
It's what I want that's easy. It's getting it that
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
katie tully said:
No, for fucks sake.

I don't agree with patents over genes, but I agree even less with perpetuating hysteria.




I can't agree more with this article. Yeah it's great that we have identifed these genes, but they don't actually, with 100% proof, determine whether you'll get breast cancer. Consequently I think people would end up relying on this test too much, and when the media beats the whole 'omg all these women will die' stick, people get lulled into a false sense of security.
i think, at this early stage at least, that such tests should act purely to encourage women to get regular checks, which in itself is a good thing.
As you have said, a lack of understanding and education leads to hysteria which can only be bad when it comes to disease and it's prevention and/or control.
 

Nebuchanezzar

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
7,536
Location
Camden
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
katie tully said:
Whatever fucker, it wouldn't be a BOS thread if it didn't go off on a tangent.

ITT: Neb posts pictures of his breast exam.
it's just that your tangets are unimportant and dull
 

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Nebuchanezzar said:
HI MY NAME IS PROFESSOR JB_NC LAY
lol

knew you'd get it
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top