E-drug: MSF Open Letter to Pascale Lamy on South Africa
---------------------------------------------
Mr. Pascal Lamy
European Commission
Rue de la Loi, 200
1049 Brussels
Brussels, February 12, 2001
Dear Commissioner Lamy,
On 18 February 1998 forty-two pharmaceutical manufacturers and their
trade organisations brought suit against the Government of the
Republic of South Africa alleging that the Medicines and Related
Substances Control Amendment Act, No. 90 of 1997 is unconstitutional.
This legislation aims to address the growing crisis of lack of access
to affordable medicine in South Africa by promoting the use of
generic medicines and by permitting the parallel importation of
medicines. On 5 March 2001, this case will be heard in front of the
High Court in Pretoria, South Africa.
In 1998 the action of the pharmaceutical companies was supported by
the US Government, which placed South Africa on the Special 301 Watch
List. On 23 March 1998 your predecessor Sir Leon Brittan wrote to
then Vice President Mbeki to express his concern about this
legislation.
We are writing you to ask you to officially withdraw the letter of
the Commission of 23 March 1998 and inform President Mbeki of South
Africa about this decision. We also ask you to explicitly express
support for South Africa�s right to use TRIPS-legal measures to
address public health concerns.
Withdrawing the letter of 23 March 1998 would be a clear gesture of
support to a government that has been accused of a tardy response to
AIDS, but which has recently embarked on an ambitious programme of
using antiretroviral therapy to prevent mother-to-child transmission
of HIV in all nine South African provinces. However, the
government's ability to provide longer-term treatment to people with
HIV - an urgent need in a country in which one in five adults has HIV
- is severely hampered by the high cost of medicines in South Africa.
We would like to stress that access to essential medicines is also
crucial to treat other illnesses prevalent in South Africa, including
malaria, TB and other infectious diseases.
Since 1998 both the US and the EC have softened their positions on
the right of a country to use TRIPS compliant provisions to address
public health concerns and emergency situations. I refer to the U.S.
Executive Order 13155, Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals and Medical
Technologies of 10 May 2000.
A similar change of policy has taken place in the Commission. On
several occasions you have referred to the fact that TRIPS provides
the necessary flexibility to address public health concerns and
emergency situations. At the G8 follow up meeting on infectious
diseases in December in Okinawa the European Commission stated that
the enhanced technical assistance in TRIPS implementation should
include compulsory licensing under Article 31.
In answer to questions of members of the European Parliament
regarding the letter of Sir Leon Brittan you informed the Parliament
that the Commission, while committed to full implementation of TRIPS,
does not pressure countries to adopt laws that are more stringent
than the TRIPS agreement requires.
In view of the above we feel it would be appropriate to use the
occasion of this court case to signal your support for efforts to use
measures compliant with WTO Agreements to promote access to medicines.
Sincerely yours,
Morten Rostrup, MD, PhD
President of M�decins Sans Fronti�res International Council
[from EHOEN@paris.msf.org (Ellen T HOEN)]
--
Send mail for the `E-Drug' conference to `e-drug@usa.healthnet.org'.
Mail administrative requests to `majordomo@usa.healthnet.org'.
For additional assistance, send mail to: `owner-e-drug@usa.healthnet.org'.