Blog | Events | Multimedia | About | Purpose | Programs | Publications | Staff | Contact | Join   
     Login      Register    




Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view


whats new at ieet
Where Next for the Space Program?

History is Contingent, Built on Flukes, Accidents, and Surprises

Compassion

What Would You Say?

Teaching Theories

Geoengineering: Global Salvation or Ruin?

George Grant and Transhumanism

What’s Wrong With Transhumanism?

Welcome to 2030

Natasha Vita-More @ SXSW 2010


comments

Marshall Barnes on 'IEET Readers See China as Future Power' (Mar 17, 2010)

postfuturist on 'IEET Readers See China as Future Power' (Mar 17, 2010)

Tom Huffman on 'The Uncertain Future of Transhumanism' (Mar 17, 2010)

postfuturist on 'IEET Readers See China as Future Power' (Mar 17, 2010)

veronica on 'Compassion' (Mar 17, 2010)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



Also check out technoprogressive multimedia on Thoughtware.tv

IEET > Life > Access

PrintEmailpermalink • (0) Comments • (12) Hits •  subscribeShare on facebook Stumble This




Big Pharma slammed over third-world drug domination

Pharmatechnologist

Posted: Nov 15, 2006

Deprived people are dying because pharmaceutical companies and worldwide governments of rich countries are obstructing the developing world from obtaining affordable medicines, according to a new report.

Link

‘Big Pharma’ slammed over third-world drug domination

By Staff Reporter

15/11/2006- Deprived people are dying because pharmaceutical companies and worldwide governments of rich countries are obstructing the developing world from obtaining affordable medicines, according to a new report.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) 74 per cent of AIDS medicines are still under monopoly, 77 per cent of Africans still have no access to AIDS treatment, and 30 per cent of the world’s population still do not have regular access to essential medicines.

The study was commissioned to mark the fifth anniversary of the Doha Declaration, an affirmation stating the right of all countries to protect public health by making available low cost drugs in the developing world.

However, the charity Oxfam has slammed efforts to enforce the commitments made by participating governments, accusing them of taking little or no action towards their obligations and in some cases undermining the declaration.

The charity saved its biggest attack on the US, home to numerous giant pharmaceutical companies, accusing the nation of bullying developing countries into not using the measures in the Doha declaration and accused the EU of doing nothing.

The Doha declaration technically allows poor countries to buy cheap copies of desperately needed drugs but the US is accused of trying to prevent countries such as Thailand and India, which have manufacturing capacity, making and selling cheap generic versions so as to preserve the monopolies of the drug giants.

Specific points written into the declaration say that developing countries must be able to use public health safeguards written into the WTO’s intellectual property rules (TRIPS) in order to access cheaper generic versions of patented medicines.

“Generic competition is the most sustainable way to keep the price of medicines down,” said Oxfam.

“Rich countries have broken the spirit of the Doha Declaration,” said Oxfam’s Make Trade Fair campaign head Celine Charveriat.

“The declaration said the right things but needed political action to work. That hasn’t happened. We’ve gone backwards. People are still suffering or dying needlessly.”

Of most concern was the action pharmaceutical companies took, directly challenging countries such as India and in Philippines that sought to use the safeguards.

In 2005, cancer patient groups in India used Indian intellectual property law to stop a patent application by the Swiss company Novartis for its anti-cancer drug, Glivec.

This allowed Indian companies to continue making generic versions at £1,400 (€2,071) per patient per year, as opposed to Novartis having a monopoly priced version for sale at more than £14,000 per patient per year.

However Novartis recently appealed the court’s decision in a direct challenge to India’s right to interpret the TRIPS agreement to protect public health. If Novartis is successful, it could jeopardise India’s generic export industry.

India is the world’s leading supplier of inexpensive generic medicines to developing countries, with approximately 67 per cent of its exports going to developing countries.

“Novartis has told Oxfam that there is no commercial market for Glivec in India and that it is challenging India in order to align Indian intellectual property law with TRIPS,” Charveriat said

“However, India is only trying to use the flexibilities rightfully available to it under TRIPS and Novartis is seeking to block that right.”

However, Paul Herrling, the company’s head of corporate research, told the Reuters Health Summit last week that India risked falling behind China in drug research if it did not shore up its weak patent protection system.

He argued that the principle of intellectual property protection must be safeguarded if innovation is to flourish.

Meanwhile, a similar battle is ongoing between US drugs giant Pfizer which produces heart disease drug Norvasc and the Philippine government which has developed its own patented version, almost 90 per cent cheaper.

“Rich countries must live up to their commitments and stop undermining the Doha Declaration with their selfish actions,” Charveriat said.

“Now more than ever we need a global trading system that puts health before profit and makes medicines affordable for all.”


PrintEmailpermalinkDiscuss in Forums • Send to: ¡ del.icio.us icon ¡ Digg icon


COMMENTS


YOUR COMMENT

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:




Next entry: Irresponsible Nanotechnology

Previous entry: Uplift imperialism?

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter | Podcast
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 229B, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376