Thailand is at war, with battles taking place on several fronts. Over
\n600,000 people in Thailand are infected with HIV and the government is
\nfighting the epidemic by administering HIV treatment and medication
\nthrough its universal healthcare system.<\/p>\n
But HIV drugs are costly. In order to provide its people with the
\nnecessary medication, Thailand has turned to cheaper, generic versions of
\ndrugs manufactured by large pharmaceutical companies. This has placed them
\ninto a brewing conflict with the pharmaceutical industry.<\/p>\n
Last November, Thailand announced that it would be bypassing the patent on
\nthe HIV drug Efavirenz, which is manufactured by pharmaceutical giant
\nMerck, by issuing a compulsory license which would allow the country to
\nimport or locally produce generic versions at a fraction of the price.
\nThree months later, Thailand also issued a compulsory license for Kaletra,
\nan HIV drug manufactured by the US company Abbott.<\/p>\n
According to TRIPS, the 1995 World Trade Organization agreement on
\nintellectual property, Thailand\u2019s move may be perfectly legal under
\ninternational law. TRIPS allows a government to issue a compulsory license
\non patented drugs when faced with a public health crisis, only paying a
\nnominal royalty to the patent holder.<\/p>\n
However, the pharmaceutical industry has decried the actions, claiming
\nthat such disregard for patent laws reduces the incentive for companies to
\nresearch and develop new drugs in the future, particularly drugs for
\nillnesses most affecting developing countries. Pharmaceutical Research and
\nManufacturers' Association (Prema) expressed concerns about \u201ccontinuing to
\ninvest in a country where the government cannot provide a basic guarantee
\nfor the safety of their assets.\u201d For its part, Abbott countered Thailand\u2019s
\nmove by refusing to release a newer, heat-resistant version of Kaletra in
\nthe country unless the compulsory license was rescinded, a boycott which
\nhas drawn harsh criticism from AIDS activists.<\/p>\n
The controversy concerning developing countries breaking patents for HIV
\ndrugs brings into sharp relief many of the issues in the debate
\nsurrounding the rationale for patent laws and more generally, for the
\nprotection of intellectual property itself.<\/p>\n
Patent laws have only been in existence for a short period of time in the
\nhistory of Western civilization. They are creatures of statute, created by
\ngovernments as a way to balance between competing policy interests. One
\nof the main rationales for patent laws is that they provide financial
\nincentives for individuals or companies to research and develop new
\ninventions by allowing them to recoup costs and profit from their efforts.
\nThe idea is this would ultimately benefit the public, which would have
\naccess to a wider range of technologies and inventions. However, if the
\ncost of providing monopolies on a new invention is that it unduly limits
\nor even stops the public from gaining access to these new benefits, the
\nentire rationale crumbles.<\/p>\n
In the fervour of capitalism, our society has lost sight of this
\nunderlying and fundamental purpose behind patent protection. We have come
\nto see patents as some sort of natural and unchanging right. Companies
\nhave come to see them as assets that must be protected at all cost, even
\nif that cost is the lives of thousands of people.<\/p>\n
It is too much for us to expect companies, whose very reason for existence
\nis the pursuit of profit, to make any financial sacrifices for the sake of
\nhumanitarian purposes. It is up to the governments of the world to change
\npatent laws so that pharmaceuticals have no choice but to follow along.
\nPatent laws should only extend the amount of protection necessary to spur
\ninvention and no more.<\/p>\n
Nowhere is the reason for such limits more clear than in the case of HIV
\ndrugs in developing countries. Many people in these countries cannot
\nafford to pay for the drugs produced by the patent holding
\npharmaceuticals. There are no large profits for the companies to obtain
\nfrom these countries. Allowing generic versions to be sold in these
\ncountries or providing them at cost would not harm the pharmaceutical
\ncompanies in any significant way. In fact, large pharmaceutical companies
\nmake plenty of money selling their products in the US and in other
\ndeveloped countries. It is highly unlikely that losing marginal profits
\nfrom developing countries would harm the ability of or the incentive for
\nthese companies to fund future research into new drugs.<\/p>\n
As for Thailand, it appears that they are at least winning the battle over
\npublic opinion. The move has been praised by numerous human rights
\norganizations, which have encouraged other developing nations, including
\nBrazil and Rwanda, to follow suit.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Thailand is at war, with battles taking place on several fronts. Over 600,000 people in Thailand are infected with HIV and the government is fighting the epidemic by administering HIV treatment and medication through its universal healthcare system. But HIV drugs are costly. In order to provide its people with the necessary medication, Thailand has […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2140,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kad_blocks_custom_css":"","_kad_blocks_head_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_body_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_footer_custom_js":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[60,10,184],"tags":[237],"class_list":["post-105","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ip","category-patents","category-pharmaceutical-drugs","tag-yu-sung-soh"],"yoast_head":"\n