A+| A| A-
Drug Patents and Public Health
About three years ago the South African government, in an attempt to modernise an old legislation and to cope with the growing need for drugs to treat AIDS patients, amended the South African Medicines Act 1965 so that it could import the anti-retroviral drugs at the best price. At that time the price of these drugs in South Africa was among the highest in the world. The enactment of the amendment, expectedly, met with little approval from the international drug companies which had so far been the sole suppliers of the drug. The amendment, especially section 15 C, drew an uproar from the pharmaceutical industry. The industry saw in the legislation a challenge to the intellectual property rights afforded by the TRIPS agreement and roundly accused South Africa of violating its provisions. In the last two weeks several developments stemming from South Africa’s attempts to modernise its drug laws and provide health care to a growing patient population have thrown the pharmaceutical industry worldwide into turmoil, confronting it with need to take cognisance of humanitarian needs.
About three years ago the South African government, in an attempt to modernise an old legislation and to cope with the growing need for drugs to treat AIDS patients, amended the South African Medicines Act 1965 so that it could import the anti-retroviral drugs at the best price. At that time the price of these drugs in South Africa was among the highest in the world. The enactment of the amendment, expectedly, met with little approval from the international drug companies which had so far been the sole suppliers of the drug. The amendment, especially section 15 C, drew an uproar from the pharmaceutical industry. The industry saw in the legislation a challenge to the intellectual property rights afforded by the TRIPS agreement and roundly accused South Africa of violating its provisions. In the last two weeks several developments stemming from South Africa’s attempts to modernise its drug laws and provide health care to a growing patient population have thrown the pharmaceutical industry worldwide into turmoil, confronting it with need to take cognisance of humanitarian needs.
The passage of the act, the case currently being heard in a Pretoria court and the actions of not only the industry majors but also of the US and European governments as well as the less than decisive actions of international agencies all draw attention to the problems with the TRIPS agreement and the urgent need to tease out the implications of its provisions. Clearly if there is a case to ensure that differential needs across regions are reflected in the process of operationalising the TRIPS provisions, there is a case too for ensuring that countries, in their hour of need, do not have to arm-twist the international health and pharmaceutical industry. For although the current controversy is about AIDS anti-retroviral drugs, so urgently needed in vast quantities, the issues will apply as well to another country’s urgent and large-scale need of drugs for treating malaria or tuberculosis or other conditions unknown or unarticulated so far. Another issue, important in its own way, is the adequacy of protection afforded to the intellectual property of the drug industry for generating which it spends enormous amounts in the hope of realising profits.
Dear Reader,
