http://www.oxfam.org/en/policy/bp109_investing_for_life_0711
According to the 2008 Fortune 1000 Report, the group of
Pharmaceutical companies made a profit of $40.1 billion, despite the low
economic climate. Meanwhile,
the majority of the world’s population does not have access to essential
medicines.
I understand that the process of developing a drug,
medication, or vaccine requires large amounts of money and resources. What I
don’t understand, are the priorities of the companies. The amount of money
spent on instilling the fear of H1N1 into the global population could have been
going to finding a cure for cholera. The resources used to develop a flu
vaccine each year could go to saving generations from easily curable diseases.
I, for one, would much rather get the flu than trypanosomiasis—but I have been
receiving emails and phone-calls urging me to get a flu vaccine based on my
history of asthma. I don’t have people calling me to get the typhoid vaccine
based on my history of travel.
I’m not an expert of pharmaceutical development, but I am
almost positive that $40 billion is more than enough to research and develop an
essential medicine for developing populations. Even if this is not the case, $40 billion is certainly
enough to warrant a subsidy on expensive medications for poor populations. The regulations regarding patents have
limited the ability to manufacture affordable versions of the drugs, further
preventing the work of health workers to gain headway.
Tracy Kidder described the efforts of Paul Farmer in her
book, Mountains Beyond Mountains. An essential part of
Paul Farmer-philosophy is that if a medication exists, all people deserve to
benefit from it, no matter the cost. Farmer also systematically “borrowed” from
Harvard University’s supplies in order to get the expensive medications to the
populations in need. While Farmer’s methods may be debateable, I
whole-heartedly agree with his thought process: just because a person cannot
pay for a drug does not mean they should have access to it. I was under the impression that
research and development of medicines were to help people and benefit the
world. When did that become attached to a clause of “if the person
can afford to pay?”
Another facet of the problem is the pharmaceutical company’s
pointed argument of their investment in medicines for malaria, TB, and
HIV/AIDs. What they don’t acknowledge is the fact that many of these drugs have
been deemed too old and inefficient for use (the most recent drug for TB was
developed 30 years ago!).
As with any treatment, constant monitoring and development of more effective
and efficient forms must be performed to combat drug resistance. This research
is not being performed, and global health issues are culminating into
multi-drug resistant havens. I was on Larium in 2008 and still got malaria.
When I was in India, I caught Chikungunya. These are illnesses people have to
live with on a daily basis—a cure, for which, just requires investment in
research.
Based on the input from 12 pharmaceutical companies, the
World Health Organization, Medicins Sans Frontieres, Voluntary Service
Overseas, Save the Children, and other key international health players, OXFAM
published a report entitled “Invest in Life.”
This 2007 report was a call to action assigning responsibility to
pharmaceutical companies to invest in the research and development of common
ailments afflicting the developing world. The claims the pharmaceutical
companies have made to claim investment in the poor were rectified: barely any research
is being done on low-profile or non-communicable, existing drugs go through
shameful “ever-greening” practices, donations are largely expired or near
expiry, and patent-demands have prevented millions from the medicines they
deserve. The twenty-year patents have created a monopoly on many valuable
medications, preventing access to treatment for millions based on
affordability. Despite the harsh criticism, Oxfam does acknowledge the progress
the pharmaceutical companies have made since a report published in 2002
entitled, “Beyond Philanthropy.” Six pharmaceutical companies responded,
largely defending the efforts they had contributed.
And yet there is still a $40 billion profit.
In this world of technological advancement and innovation, I
see no reason that there have not been cures and/or vaccinations for common
ailments such as dengue fever or chikungunya virus. Leprosy and polio are still
major problems. Childhood diseases that we westerners were vaccinated for in
our youth are still killing millions. When the medical solution exists, why is
it not being used to its full potential? The practice of “donating” expired or
almost expired medicines is appalling. Pharmaceutical companies are smart
enough (or have teams of people that are) to figure out true demand at inflated
prices to judge demand for unexpired donations. Just because a person is poor
does not mean that they deserve inadequate and inefficient medical “donations.”
When
it comes to access to medicine, I completely support the efforts of Medicins
Sans Frontieres. Their Access to Essential Medicines campaign has been a call
to action for pharmaceutical companies and a wake up call for any informed
consumer. MSF’s campaign urges the pooling of patents in order to create
affordable methods of treatment, medical innovation for needs versus market
priorities, and the creation of sustainable solutions for the worlds poor. In typical MSF fashion, an eloquent yet
systematic attack is placed on the institutions with the capacity to help the
cause to actually help. As an
aside with regards to patent defence, the force with which Nutriset is
defending its patent shocks me—I was under the impression that Plumy’nut was
developed to help malnourished children, not to create a monopoly on a
life-saving medicine.
I believe the work of Oxfam and MSF will eventually be
successful—too many consumers are becoming aware of the situation in order to
allow it to continue. The question is when. When will the poor be able to
access medicines? When will the world be able to eradicate diseases such as
polio and smallpox? When will children stop dying from pneumonia? It is already
too late for so many…I hope that we don’t waste more lives waiting. Many
pharmaceutical companies have the funds and resources necessary to provide
medical innovation for people in developing countries. Market demand should be
based on need, not financial profitability. I firmly stand by the belief that
pharmaceutical companies should be held accountable on more than just ethic and
moral terms—this involves fighting sleeping sickness instead of female sexual
dysfunction. Public awareness of the disparity between medicinal access for the
rich and poor is an essential component—without being held accountable by the
public financing operations, how can one expect the pharmaceutical companies to
change? The question is, then, how does one go about informing the general
public and getting them to care? That’s a battle in itself.
Recent Comments