E-drug: Oxfam accuses Pfizer of 'moral bankruptcy'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BMJ 2001;323:186 ( 28 July )
News
Oxfam accuses Pfizer of "moral bankruptcy"
Rory Watson, Brussels
Pfizer, the world's largest pharmaceutical company, is being accused of
moral bankruptcy by pricing lifesaving drugs beyond the reach of millions
of people in developing countries.
The charge comes from the United Kingdom based charity, Oxfam, which is
campaigning to end the company's single pricing policy and is pressing for
more flexible use of patent rules.
In a new report released simultaneously in eight countries, Oxfam has
claimed that the company has aggressively enforced its patents in poor
countries, driving up the cost of medicines, and, unlike some of its
competitors, has not reduced the price of branded drugs.
David Earnshaw of Oxfam Brussels said: "The developing world accounts for
only 5% of the pharmaceutical industry's income. Behaving responsibly in
developing countries is not going to cost Pfizer a lot of money."
The report maintained that despite owning three important drugs for
infectious diseasesthe antifungal fluconazole (Diflucan), the antiobiotic
azithromycin (Zithromax), and the antiretroviral nelfinavir (Viracept)
Pfizer has shown little flexibility on pricing.
"Where it has patents, it appears to adopt a broadly uniform pricing
strategy, and its policy is not to issue licences to generic
manufacturers," the report noted. Oxfam acknowledged that Pfizer, which
sells seven of the world's top 30 drugs, operates several philanthropic
initiatives, but it insists that these are an inadequate response to the
health crisis facing poor countries.
Responding to the criticism, Pfizer insisted that medicine donation
programmes had proved to be a durable and effective way to fight disease in
the developing world, attracting countries, foundations, individuals,
competitors, and academic alliances as partners.
It pointed specifically to its partnership with the South African
government in the free provision of fluconazole to patients with AIDS; to
its academic alliance for AIDS care and prevention; and to its trachoma
abatement programme. It maintained that strong patent protection was
essential to make drug discovery possible and profitable.
"Eliminate patent protection, and the incentive for original research is
removed and every research based pharmaceutical company becomes a generic
drug manufacturer, and the discovery of new medicines for Alzheimer's,
cancer, diabetes, malaria, and heart disease slows to a trickle," the
company said.
Formula for Fairness: Patient Rights Before Patent Rights is at
www.oxfam.org.uk/cutthecost/pfizer.pdf
-------------------------------------
Kirsten Myhr
Head of Eastern Region Drug Information Centre
RELIS Ost
Ulleval University Hospital
0407 Oslo, Norway
Tel.: +47 23 01 64 11(o) Fax: +47 23 01 64 10
+47 22 56 05 85 (h) mobile: +47 416 38 747
myhr@online.no (p); kirsten.myhr@relis.ulleval.no (o)
www.relis.no
--
Send mail for the `E-Drug' conference to `e-drug@usa.healthnet.org'.
Information and archive http://satellife.healthnet.org/programs/edrug.html
Mail administrative requests to `majordomo@usa.healthnet.org'.
For additional assistance, send mail to: `owner-e-drug@usa.healthnet.org'.