faulker031

Imagine that you live in poverty. A chance arises for you to earn a year's salary in one day. All being well, no one will get hurt. In fact, what you're going to do will save someone's life. Sounds like quite a deal. Or at least it does until until you realize that what we're talking about here is selling one of your kidneys. And that it's illegal almost everywhere. The decision to sell an organ is a stark choice. It speaks so much of all that is wrong with our global inequities. It shouldn't be happening. But, like it or not, it does happen. For many people looking to get out of poverty, the sale of one of their organs is clearly a desperate choice ... but it is also a choice that they are sometimes willing to make. The illegal organ trade is not for the faint hearted. Sure, it saves lives, but it's an ugly business. Ric Esther Bienstock, the documentary-maker behind the award winning " Sex Slaves" documentary about global sex trafficking has tak...

The death of Baroness Thatcher is dominating today's news. Despite the euologic praises heaped now posthumously on the ‘iron lady’ one cannot overlook one common thread: ambiguity. Yes, she modernized Britain, but for whom? She was a war leader, but what was really gained in the Falklands? She battled constantly with her European friends, but to what avail? Yes, she was the first British female head of state, fairly unprecedented in many countries at the time – but did she leave a legacy to her sisterhood? “Well, yes, technically she was a woman...” was one of the funnier comments on Thatcher’s gender role I once heard. It is fair to say then that among her legacy is certainly one topic which is close to the interest of this blog. And we hasten to add, a legacy no less ambiguous than all her other ones. She certainly symbolizes and has pioneered many of the political changes which have given rise to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as a new business practice during the last t...

Today’s news that the Indian supreme court has effectively denied the Swiss multinational pharmaceutical company Novartis the patent protection for its ‘new’ blood cancer drug Glivec (Gleevec in North America) has been discussed controversially in the media. On the one hand, commentators sympathetic to the industry have pointed out that without patent protection a publicly owned company loses its incentive to develop new drugs. Pharmaceutical innovation, so the argument goes, is driven by the hope of future returns. Since development of new drugs is very costly, time consuming and competitive, companies can hardly justify investments when rulings such as today's kill their hopes of recouping the costs through future sales. In short, the Indian ruling " will hinder medical progress" ( Novartis press release) and thus  kills innovation. On the other hand, activists and other voices critical of the industry argue that this is a win for all those that have the interest of poo...