E-DRUG: Abbott wrong to target Thailand
-----------------------------------------
EDITORIAL, Bangkok Post, 25 April 2007
Abbott wrong to target Thailand
The latest offer by Abbott Laboratories to register
second-line Aids drug Aluvia in Thailand if the
government drops its compulsory licence is a step in
the right direction. But the government should reject
any offer that calls for dropping the compulsory
licence, which is a right guaranteed in the World
Trade Organisation's agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS).
Indeed, the government's decision to issue a
compulsory licence for Kaletra has already reaped
benefits, and not just for Thailand. Although Abbott
pulled registrations for Aluvia - a heat-stable form
of Kaletra that does not require refrigeration - and
six other new drugs in Thailand, the company did
reduce the price of both Kaletra and Aluvia for 45
low- and middle-income countries to $1,000 per-patient
per year from $2,200 previously.
Thailand was included in this list of countries, but
Abbott singled Thailand out by refusing to register
Aluvia here. In essence, the pharmaceutical giant was
hoping to placate growing calls for an international
boycott while still slapping Thailand for daring to
take advantage of a WTO agreement on intellectual
property rights. The message to the rest of the world
was clear: Issue a compulsory licence, and be
punished.
But Thai negotiators should accept no punishment from
Abbott for issuing a compulsory licence. And that's
what makes Abbott's latest offer unacceptable.
First of all, Abbott will still refuse to register six
new drugs in Thailand to protest its use of the
compulsory licence. This is punishment enough. If Thai
policy-makers accept Abbott's latest price reduction
on Aluvia - which has been extended to Brazil, China,
India and about 40 other countries with no such
penalty - then it will have accepted the drug
company's right to sanction the country for following
an international agreement accepted by 150 WTO
members.
Secondly, if Thailand agrees to drop the compulsory
licence, it would be giving up a right guaranteed in
the TRIPS agreement, which could set a dangerous
precedent for future talks with drug companies.
Thailand should not have to apologise or give up
rights guaranteed in international treaties for Abbott
to register Aluvia and the six other drugs it
withdrew. To the contrary, the Thai government's
decision to issue compulsory licences has led to
cheaper Aids drug prices around the world.
The issue is all about finding the cheapest drugs
available for poor patients. As the Public Health
Ministry has repeated again and again, the Thai
government is not interested in seeking price
reductions for rich patients who can afford to pay
$2,200 per year for Kaletra or Aluvia. Policy-makers
are simply trying to secure cheap prices only for Aids
patients who can't afford the drugs and wouldn't buy
them anyway.
If Abbott wants to blame anyone for compulsory
licences, it can start pointing the finger at the
WTO's 150 member governments, including the United
States, which agreed that developing countries should
have the right to use them. Indeed, TRIPS is the
world's foremost agreement on intellectual property
rights. It's unacceptable for Abbott to scold Thailand
about intellectual property rights when the government
has complied with TRIPS throughout the process. Even
World Health Organisation head Margaret Chan said
Thailand's compulsory licences were "fully in line
with the TRIPS agreement."
If Abbott thinks otherwise, it should ask the US
government to file a complaint at the WTO's dispute
settlement body. If Abbott doesn't do that, it should
not expect Thailand or the rest of the world to follow
the company's own guidelines on intellectual property.
Although Thai policy-makers courageously started this
discussion on intellectual property rights, now the
debate must move beyond the country's borders. The WHO
and other international bodies should make it clear
where they stand.
If TRIPS is nothing more than empty promises, then it
must be reworked. If the majority of trading nations
oppose compulsory licensing, then it should be done
away with altogether. Or if more conditions must be
placed on using compulsory licences, then by all means
they should be put in place.
But it's the height of hypocrisy for governments to
pass a ground-breaking agreement to expand drug access
to poor patients, and then heap vitriol on a country
that actually tries to implement the deal.
Kannikar KIJTIWATCHAKUL (Kar)
Mobile 66-85-0708954
kakablue@yahoo.com