Held to ransom
A pharma giant's decision to withhold new drugs from Thailand will only hurt patients, says Apoorva Mandavilli.
Is there ever a good enough reason to deny life-saving medicines to an entire country's citizens?
I say no. But it seems a pharmaceutical giant begs to differ.
Read the column here.
Comments
The pharmaceutical companies always say that they need high prices and extensive patent protection to be able to develop new drugs, but they are also among the most profitable companies in the world. Drugs are not interchangeable commodities. Their patents, in the case of many drugs, amount to monopolies. It's also worth noting that drug companies main financial crises come when they release and market drugs, such as Vioxx, without careful consideration for safety.
Posted by: Richard KeslerWest | March 26, 2007 09:05 PM
The column is commendable as a condemnation of Abbott's actions. I would point out, however, that the discussion of the "technical" legality of Thailand's compulsory licenses lacks context and is somewhat misleading. The column implies that a "public health emergency" is required for issuing a compulsory license, but in fact WTO rules do not limit the reasons for which countries may issue compulsory licenses. The relevance of a "public health emergency" is that it is one of three grounds under which WTO rules (TRIPS article 31) allow countries to issue compulsory licenses without first negotiating with the patent holder (see WTO’s FAQ here: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/public_health_faq_e.htm). It should be noted that these patent flexibilities were included in WTO rules largely in order to make the rules consistent with U.S. law, and that the U.S. and other developed countries routinely make use of compulsory licensing of patents on technologies ranging from medical diagnostics to automobile transmissions.
Posted by: Benjamin Krohmal | March 27, 2007 11:59 AM