E-drug: Re: Article on The Global Drug Gap by Michael Reich
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose at the base of the debate over access to essential drugs,
inequities, etc, is the desire to redefine the role of business in
society. We are in effect asking the private enterprise business
sector, and in this respect, the pharmaceutical industry (and
associated elements such as R&D, venture investment, etc), to
redefine its place in society. That is, to have a social conscious,
and to subsequently demonstrate socio- ethical responsibility, over
and above their interest for shareholders. We are asking business
sector to fully engage in development and the alleviation of
suffering globally by using their more than adequate resources
(including deploying risk- taking to address those areas of health
care not considered profitable). After all, is 'aid' and
'development' an arena only for NGOs, donor agencies and governments?
Is this possible? A few years ago NGOs were being told to take on
management approaches and lobbying tactics previously seen as the
preserve (excuse the pun) of commerce, or the political arena
(Congress or other parliaments). Today, we see that these changes are
taking place, an no NGO is safe if it does not change. An example of
the power of pressure, using public opinion and the impact thereof,
is the MSF Access to Essential drugs campaign, and also ACT UP Phila.
It now seems that the pharmaceutical industry is under pressure
everywhere, being asked to justify R&D costs, product costs, etc. In
some cases, this is essential pressure, as some of these costs and
certain marketing practices are hard to justify (eg, cost of
R&D: has any one got an idea how this is done, and what is involved
in costing? Product selling price; incentives to decision- makers, etc).
However, there remains a need to consider how we pursue these goals
(increasing access to essential drugs; cheap but effective medical
products). Is there space for considered argument, rather than
resorting to what on the surface looks like applying 'inflammed
passions' to initiate change, at whatever cost? Who should be leading
in these debates, and who else must be heard? I sense a rather
dangerous 'can- do' attitude from some sectors in this debate,
because it is now possible to make thing happen. However, that
'gangho' approach needs also to be checked. I would refer readers to
two articles in the Winter 2000 issue of Humanitarian Affairs Review
('How Public Opinion Drives (and Distorts) Relief Policies' by
Colette Braeckmen, and 'The Business of Aid' by Nick Carter), for
reflection.
I think that all involved in driving this debate must help the
pharmaceutical industry to change. Michael Reich (according to the
abstract presented by R. Laing), offers an interesting approach that
recognises the many elements that need to be recognised and
addressed.
Bonnie
Bonnie Fundafunda
Marketing Manager
ECHO International Health Services Limited
Ullswater Crescent, Coulsdon, Surrey CR5 2HR, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 8660 2220
Fax: +44 (0)20 8668 0751
email: bfunda@echohealth.org.uk
--
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'.