Starting March 1, the law “On Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine on Licensing of Medicine Import” comes into force. According to its opponents, this means roughly 8,000 types of medicines will no longer be able to cross the Ukrainian border.
I suspect many readers have encountered, when trying to buy a particular drug, the response that the medicine “is under licensing”—not to mention that prices have been rising steadily. Now there will be even fewer medicines available, and prices will climb higher still. Many medicines needed by terminally ill patients may simply disappear from sale for a considerable time.
In general, this is a textbook case of government regulation. It is just that here the absurdity is visible vividly and clearly, because it is connected with pain, suffering, and loss of loved ones. And in this particular case, another flaw is equally visible: the state’s inaccessibility to accountability, when norms that lie at the very foundation of law itself do not extend to officials.
Let us examine these points. First, the meaning of regulation. Say I fall ill and the doctor tells me a certain “active substance” can help. Manufacturers offer different medicines containing it—worse and better, cheaper and more expensive. I choose what best suits my situation. Say this happens to be “cheap and low-quality Indian import.” It suits my budget. And it works. But then the state appears and says, “Hey, no, that’s not how it works. I’ve been told this is a bad medicine, that it doesn’t comply with some standard.” But excuse me—what business is that of yours? It’s my health, not yours. And each case is unique. In one situation, a cheap, mediocre medicine may do the trick; in another, the doctor will say, “For your case you need exactly this drug—generics won’t help”—and I will have to pay up. But what does the state have to do with this? Why are we all obligated to buy medicine of a certain standard (setting aside the objectivity of the standard and the very possibility of such objectivity)? Generally speaking, the ability to produce higher-quality goods—to follow a higher standard—is, other things being equal, an advantage for the manufacturer. It is his job to prove to the consumer that the result is worth the money. But have you anywhere seen a manufacturer directly advertising the quality standards it follows? I have not. And why would they, when the state regulates all this and often prohibits all other standards altogether?
It is interesting that the state still has the nerve to call what it does “protection.” That is, it protects me from medicine that I can afford and that helps me. Wonderful.
I will be told that all this happens because this law was actually adopted with corrupt purposes. Yes, no one doubts that. But corrupt motives distract us from the main thing. What would change for the victims of this law if it had been adopted with purely good intentions and if no one profited from it? What difference does it make what goals this or that official pursues, if following their goals causes direct harm to my health?
Now the second point, which is more frightening. Look. The officials now engaged in this matter know that as a result of their activities, many sick people will be left without necessary medicines and may die. Are these deaths murder? The law will tell us yes. Some people committed actions that led to the death of others, and the first knew about the consequences. Well, what will state law tell us—the criminal code? At best, we will find there “criminal negligence” or “recklessness.” And if there was no negligence at all and death occurred precisely as a result of careful execution of all laws and instructions, what then? Nothing. It is only we who are not allowed to kill each other. The state is allowed to. The main thing is that everything is “on legal grounds.”