Comment by 1123581321
13 years ago
What they mean is that they want to provide testing in such an easy, affordable, useful way that it can become a basic human right/the standard. It is similar to how literacy could become a basic human right once books became cheap, accessibly written and easy to distribute. Should the company that brings about this change be able to expect people to demand its (and its competitors') services? That is what you are asking. I think it depends on if the new standard is actually a positive change. Since the new testing process seems in every way superior to current standard processes, I think that the change in behavior Theranos proposes to bring about is a healthy and beneficial one, and do not mind that they have the means to provide what they want to exist.
I would argue the right to literacy is already a human right. The price of books is orthogonal.
Before books were inexpensive and widely distributed, other means of communication fulfilled many of the functions of books. That is why I chose that example. If you believe that literacy is an eternal human right, substitute one of the other more economically dependent ones such as the right to a lawyer. I don't want my analogy to get in the way of my point for you.
That makes sense. I'm not sure positive rights such as the right to a lawyer, or the right to police protection, are fundamental human rights. If you draw a distiction between positive and negative liberty a la Kant [1], you can argue that only negative liberties can be basic human rights. Sure we have a right to legal counsel, but that also implies a duty. What if no one in the city wants to be a lawyer.
[1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/
Was literacy a human right before humans invented the first written languages? What about the first few thousand years afterwards, where it was a technique used only by specialists and the materials to write were very expensive?