E-DRUG: Millions for Viagra, Pennies for the Poor (cont)
--------------------------------------------------------
Bjorn had made good comments on this topic. Undoubtedly both the
trans/multinational drug companies (MNCs) and to a lesser extent local
companies in some countries have done a good job in R&D, otherwise new drugs
(although not all are essential) wouldn't be available. The primary aim of
any commercial companies is to make profits as much as possible mostly from
sales of their products. Therefore it is not surprised that the current
trends of R&D of MNCs is directed to the innovation of expensive branded
medicines for diseases or the so-called life-style products (Viagra is one
of these I believe) of affluent countries. To make money one should go to
the rich, going to the poor one cannot make much money!. Of course there are
few exceptions eg the exploitation of the colonial rules.
What can be done? Richard, Bojrn and Billy have discussed some areas that
may be addressed. I think we may have to explore further as how these are
going to be feasible. The "HOW" question is more difficult to have right
answers - I guess. This "HOW" question raises further sub-questions:
1. Who (the MNCs or the generics producers) are likely to profit from the
current patent rights/Trips under the WTO, when the patent life of the
brand names are extended for another 5 (in some countries more) years? It is
a pity for the generic manufacturers but another fortune for the brand
producers. Many governments in the third world who have developed and
attempted to implement their national drug policies one of which element is
to promote generic drug production locally face more difficulties once they
have joined up with the WTO agreement.
2. Millions in the poor Third World struggling for access to basic health
care and drugs are dying from preventable and curable diseases such as
malaria and TB. Poverty is one of the most determinant factors in this.
Budgetary constraints limit the ability of the governments to provide low
cost or free medicines in the public sector. The low income of individual
consumers restrained the purchasing power in the private market. Providing
equity of access to basic health care and drugs is, from my view, the most
important responsibility and priority task of any government. The government
must take the lead and should orchestrate other players, including the drug
industry, to do the job. At the national level, a stronger political will
and commitments of the government are required.
3. Some have mentioned about stricter legislation and regulations in drug
trade and R&D. In certain instances this may work and may not work in the
others. Experience in many countries, including Australia, Thailand and the
Philippines, have shown that this measure brought (more) problems for drug
regulatory authorities and the governments to ensure a timely safe, good and
effective drugs to the population. For the industry, stricter or tougher
regulations mean slow, time-consuming and high cost. At the very end, who
pay for these costs if not the consumers!
4. Can we invite E-Drug readers (if any) from WHO/DAP to this discussion,
what role WHO/DAP may play in this particular situation. And are there any
other E-Drug readers from the Third World who may have a say?
S. Phanouvong
Email: s.phanouvong@latrobe.edu.au
--
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'.