To be honest, I personally tend to disagree with this theory, although perhaps my opinion is biased and based on a different cultural and historical tradition.
This will be a bit of a long story, possibly full of off-topic, but without these details I probably won't be able to explain my position.
I will try not to write too much unnecessary, so as not to bore the audience with boring details. I will only voice the main points.
1. Personally, I am Russian by nationality and was born in Russia. In this country, until 1861, there was so-called serfdom. This is approximately the same as slavery, with the sale of people, but with some differences - a serf, unlike a simple slave, could not be killed (the owner could easily go to prison or hard labor for this, with the deprivation of class privileges), well, and serfs usually lived in separate small houses with land, and not in common barracks.
2. Then after some time, communism took place, with the subsequent cold war and the closing of borders. A citizen of the USSR had no right to leave his country without special permission, even if he had money. At all.
As a result of such a "slave-owning" past, or due to some other factors, a strong conviction has emerged (among people, the state, society) that any person is always a resource. The same as minerals, money, goods, etc. And losing people is extremely economically unprofitable, even if we cynically forget about all human rights.
Accordingly, it is extremely difficult for me personally to understand that someone would value human life, existing or potential, lower than the purchase price of any, even the most expensive medicine. I am now relying on money and economics, deliberately ignoring any values of modern civilizations (like human rights). I am strictly translating everything into money.
Because:
1. A person, even from the poorest classes, will still pay more taxes in his life than the cost of the most expensive medicine.
2. A person will acquire a huge number of goods in his life, even if he is poor - even the cheapest and worst food and clothing.
Therefore, it is extremely difficult for me personally to believe that this situation with possible infertility was created intentionally. I can fully admit that this is the result of incompetence and the lack of possible years of testing, but not intent. Well, what is the point of "killing" potential clients and taxpayers? It is absolutely unprofitable, even if people are not considered people at all and their lives are not valued at all.
I don't know. Maybe I'm thinking like some kind of cynical slave owner, but it seems to me that even a free, absolutely independent citizen is still some kind of profit, at least hypothetically, but when there are no people - well, it's like settling alone on the famous space asteroid "Psyche", which, according to rumors, consists almost entirely of gold and platinum, the one who settles on it will clearly be the richest person in the world - but what good will it do if there is simply nothing to spend these funds on outside of human society. All that's left is to just sit on this gold, and... starve.
That's my personal opinion. Although yes, I am not at all saying that we should not think with our heads at all and blindly trust any pharmaceutical corporations. They are also no more than people, and can easily make mistakes, as in the above-described case.
