L. Klaus

Health is higher on the international agenda than ever before, and improving the health of poor people is a central issue in development. Poor people suffer from far higher levels of ill health, mortality, and malnutrition than do those better off, and their inadequate health is one of the factors keeping them poor or for their being poor in the first place. Health is a crucially important economic asset, particularly for poor people. Their livelihoods depend on it. When poor people become ill or injured, their entire household can become trapped in a downward spiral of lost income and high healthcare costs—a vicious circle of poverty and ill health

When Max Weber made use of the terms ?Vergemeinschaftung? and ?Vergesellschaftung? in the first chapter of ?Economy and Society?, he was among other things alluding to Ferdinand Tönnies' well- known usage of ?Gemeinschaft? and ?Gesellschaft?, as well as to related conceptions in the work of Georg Simmel. However, Weber's usage not only differed from the senses in which Tönnies and Simmel used these terms; he had himself altered his own usage since the early draft of this chapter, published in 1913 as ?On some Categories of Interpretive Sociology?. The tangled resonances that result from this are carefully identified and separated, and in so doing light is shed upon the nature and status of Weber's intentions in writing his important chapter on ?Basic Sociological Categories?

In recent years society has come to expect more from the “socially-responsible” company and the global HIV/AIDS pandemic in particular has resulted in some critics saying that the “Big Pharma” companies have not been living up to their social responsibilities. Corporate social responsibility can be understood as the socio-economic product of the organizational division of labor in complex modern society. Global poverty and poor health conditions are in the main the responsibilities of the world’s national governments and international governmental organizations, which possess society’s mandate and appropriate organizational capabilities. Private enterprises have neither the societal mandate nor the organizational capabilities to feed the poor or provide health care to the sick intheir home countries or in the developing world. Nevertheless, private enterprises do have responsibilities to society that can be categorized as what they must do, what they ought do, and what they can do.

There has been a tremendous increase in interest in bioethics, which has come in direct response to the substantial advances in biomedical research and medical technology over the past 30 years. The more sophisticated medical science and technology becomes, the more sophisticated are questions that are raised: Who has the right to decide whether a medical treatment should be initiated, continued, or stopped? How much information are healthcare professionals required to give to patients? When should a patient's right to confidentiality be violated? When, if ever, is active or passive euthanasia or abortion justified, and who has the right to decide on these issues?

A good deal of attention has been recently focused on the presumed advertising excesses of the healthcare industry in its promotion techniques to healthcare professionals, whether through offering gratuities such as gifts, honoraria, or travel support2-6 or through deception. Two basic concerns have been expressed: Does the acceptance of gratuities bias the recipient, tainting his or her responsibilities as the patient's agent? Does acceptance of the gratuity by the healthcare professional contribute to the high cost of healthcare products? The California Society of Hospital Pharmacists was recently asked by its members to formulate a policy for an appropriate relationship between the Society and the healthcare industry, addressing these concerns. In formulating its policy, it became clear that the Society depended on healthcare industry support, gathered through journal advertising, fees for booths at its various educational events, and grants for speakers

Today there is a growing wave of demands being placed upon the pharmaceutical industry to contribute to improved access to medicines for poor patients in the developing countries. 1 This article aims to contribute to the development of a systematic approach and broad consensus about shared benchmarks for good corporate practices in this area. A consensus corridor on what constitutes an appropriate portfolio of corporate responsibilities for access to medicines -especially under conditions of 'failing states' and 'market failure' 2 – is not only in the interest of the world's poor, but also of corporations that want to contribute to the solution of one of the most significant social problems of our time