Patents and access to drugs in developing countries: An ethical analysis

Developing World Bioethics

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 58-75

  Sterckx, Sigrid ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AFRICA; ASIA; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; DRUG RESEARCH; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HUMAN RIGHTS; JUSTICE; LAW; MEDICAL ETHICS; MORALITY; PATENT; POPULATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; SYMPOSIUM; TROPICAL DISEASE;

EID: 2342582131     PISSN: 14718731     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-8731.2004.00067.x     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. See e.g.: US International Trade Commission. 1988. Foreign Protection of Intellectual Property Rights and the Effects on the US Industry and Trade. Publication No. 2065.
2. See e.g.: C.A.P. Braga. The Economics of Intellectual Property Rights and the GATT: A View from the South. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1989; 22:243-264.
3. GATT Secretariat, ed. 1994. Annex 1C: Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. In The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. The Legal Texts. Geneva. WTO: 365-403. Also available at: docsonline.wto.org/DDFDocuments/t/UR/FA/27-trips.doc
4. p. Grubb. 1999. Patents for Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology. Oxford. Clarendon Press.
5. J-M. Salamolard. 1978. La licence obligatoire en matière de brevets d'invention. Etude de droit comparé. Genève. Librairie Droz.
6. See art. 31 (f) TRIPs.
7. Which he formulated in his Second Treatise on Government (1690). See: P. Laslett, ed. 1988. Locke, Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press: 285-302.
8. Available at: http://www.nihcm.org/innovations.pdf.
9. Laslett, op. cit. note 7, § 27.
10. Laslett, op. cit. note 7, § 31.
11. R. Nozick. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Oxford. Basil Blackwell: 175.
12. I b i d.
13. I do not understand the concept of 'essential drugs' as 'drugs that appear on the World Health Organization's essential drug list.' As some defenders of strong drug patents like to note, more than 95% of the drugs on that list are off-patent. However, the reason for this seems to be that a drug must be 'affordable' in order to get on the list, and patented drugs are usually expensive. But of course the fact that a drug is expensive does not necessarily prevent it from being 'essential' (in the sense of badly needed by a group of patients).
14. In a utilitarian framework, as discussed below, the unequal access is said to be justified by the incentive-to-invent it creates. However, in a framework of distributive justice such an argument cannot be decisive.
15. E. Hettinger. Justifying Intellectual Property. Philosophy & Public Affairs 1989; 18: 41.
16. National Institutes of Health. 2000. NIH Contributions to Pharmaceutical Development (administrative document). Cited in: Public Citizen. 2002. America's Other Drug Problem: A Briefing Book on the Rx Drug Debate. Washington, DC. Public Citizen: 51.
17. National Institutes of Health. 2000. NIH Contributions to Pharmaceutical Development (administrative document). Cited in: Public Citizen. 2002. America's Other Drug Problem: A Briefing Book on the Rx Drug Debate. Washington, DC. Public Citizen: 51.
18. Cited in: ABC News. 30 May, 2002. Peter Jennings Reporting - Bitter Medicine. Pills, Profit and the Public's Health. Available at: http://abcnews.go.com/onair/ABCNEWSSpecials/pharmaceuticals_020529_pjr_feature. html
19. D.W. Brock. Some Questions about the Moral Responsibilities of Drug Companies in Developing Countries. Developing World Bioethics 2001; 1: 36-37.
20. J. Watal. 2000. Access to Essential Medicines in Developing Countries. Does the WTO TRIPS Agreement hinder it? (Science, Technology and Innovation Discussion Paper No. 8). Cambridge, MA. Center for International Development, Harvard University: 5.
21. See: B. Pécoul, P. Chirac, P. Trouiller & J. Pinel. Access to Essential Drugs in Poor Countries - A Lost Battle? JAMA 1999; 281: 365 (Table 2). See also the recent survey by experts of the Harvard School of Public Health and an international group of experts, the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Working Group, available at: www.accessmed-msf.org. See also another recent survey which the umbrella organisation of the American pharmaceutical industry (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) held among its members, New Medicines in Development, available at: www.phrma.org.
22. See: B. Pécoul, P. Chirac, P. Trouiller & J. Pinel. Access to Essential Drugs in Poor Countries - A Lost Battle? JAMA 1999; 281: 365 (Table 2). See also the recent survey by experts of the Harvard School of Public Health and an international group of experts, the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Working Group, available at: www.accessmed-msf.org. See also another recent survey which the umbrella organisation of the American pharmaceutical industry (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) held among its members, New Medicines in Development, available at: www.phrma.org.
23. See: B. Pécoul, P. Chirac, P. Trouiller & J. Pinel. Access to Essential Drugs in Poor Countries - A Lost Battle? JAMA 1999; 281: 365 (Table 2). See also the recent survey by experts of the Harvard School of Public Health and an international group of experts, the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Working Group, available at: www.accessmed-msf.org. See also another recent survey which the umbrella organisation of the American pharmaceutical industry (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) held among its members, New Medicines in Development, available at: www.phrma.org.
24. See: Fortune 500. Fortune Magazine 2002; April. In 2001, the profits of 'America's 10 largest pharmaceutical companies went up by 33% - from 28 to 37,3 billion dollars! - despite the bad economic situation. Profits are also growing much faster than the volume of R&D investments. According to the 2001 Fortune 500 ranking, the pharmaceutical industry was the most profitable industry for the tenth time in a row.
25. Keynote presentation on the occasion of the 'Forum 5' gathering organised by the Global Forum for Health Research (www.globalforumhealth.org), October 2001.
26. Emphasis added.
27. See e.g.: C.A.P. Braga et al. 1999. Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Development (Background paper for the World Development Report 1999). Washington, DC. World Bank.
28. WTO Ministerial Conference. Fourth Session. Doha, 9-14 November 2001. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2, 20 November 2001.
29. th WTO Ministerial Conference (Briefing Note). Cancún.
30. InsideHealthPolicy.com Daily Updates. 17 January, 2003.
31. See: IMS Health Market Report: Five Year Forecast of the Global Pharmaceutical Markets (available at http://www.ims-global.com/insight/report/global/report.htm), quoted in: MSF. 2001. Fatal Imbalance. Available at: www.msf.org.
32. See: IMS Health Market Report: Five Year Forecast of the Global Pharmaceutical Markets (available at http://www.ims-global.com/insight/report/global/report.htm), quoted in: MSF. 2001. Fatal Imbalance. Available at: www.msf.org.
33. Ip-health mailing list. 23 December, 2002.
34. J. Bhagwati. Patents and the Poor. Financial Times 16 September, 2002.