[afro-nets] Patents and public health

[Claudio <claudio@hcmc.netnam.vn>]

Patents and public health
-------------------------

From: PHM - Secretariat

Patents, Intellectual Property Rights, Unjust Trade and Public
Health

Public interest organizations and pro people health movement
have been concerned about the public health consequences of the
TRIPS regime.

Many individuals and organizations have worked on it for long.

The TRIPS regime has been identified as one of the most unjust
international trade regimes. Resistance to it as well as to WTO
(earlier known as GATT) and the Dunkel Draft with ONLY a TAKE IT
or LEAVE IT option given to developing countries) has come from
farmers, public interest and human rights-minded social action
groups, drug and health activists.

It was the pressure of trade sanctions under the US Trade and
Omnibus Act of 1988 that made many countries like India sign on
the dotted line, in spite of widespread protests from farmers
and peoples organizations.

A TRIPS review was due in 2000, but HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE yet. WHO
has been aware and concerned about problems of access and cost
of medicines. The difficulties faced by South Africa, Brazil,
Thailand in implementing the TRIPS safeguards clearly shows that
TRIPS is about trade and commerce rather than about PUBLIC
HEALTH.

It was the pressure of the AIDS activists and rational drug ac-
tivists that forced the large patent holding pharma companies
and their governments to give up some of their unethical pres-
sure tactics.

The cost of anti retroviral drugs annual treatment regimes was
forced down from $15000/year to $350/year with cheaper generic
drugs making genuine equivalents available to people showing a
people-before-profit-attitude. .

In India, a large number of organisations are working on
HIV/AIDS, but very few on the issue of 'right to health and
right to essential medicines at affordable costs' - the latter
concerns have unfortunately not received the urgent attention
they deserve. Intervention by public interest groups and citi-
zens is indispensable if any bill is being discussed on TRIPS
issues; no bill can be accepted unchallenged.

Large MNCs that were involved in formulation of the TRIPS docu-
ment and getting it through the GATT secretariat as an official
GATT position continued their pressure through their governments
and WTO, as well as in Brazil, Argentina, India and Thailand;
pressures have also been used through the World Bank and IMF.

Unless the public health implications of the TRIPS and WTO are
understood by a larger number of organizations and individuals
involved in health work, they will not come forward to speak up
and have their voices counted, as the space for intervention
CLOSES.

Many of the suggestions made by public-minded groups do NOT get
considered/incorporated and many of the concerns related to
safeguards are not included, because they 'create problems to
vested interests and challenge industry with their army of pat-
ent lawyers and large financial resources.

We must demand:

1. A TRIPS review overdue since 2002. If commitments made to the
developing countries are not kept, why should they be pressured
to continue taking decisions against their own national inter-
est?

2. Public health, public interest groups and the people's health
movement must be given voice and be heard.

3. Only new chemical entities should be granted patents. No pat-
ent for new use of old drugs, new formulations, new dosage
forms. (This is beyond the TRIPS obligations).

4 The Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health was meant to
safeguard public health interest. Para '6' regarding medicines
for Least Developed Countries with little or no manufacturing
capability was to have been worked out within a time frame now
overdue. (The August 30 decision of TRIPS General Council per-
mits, grant of compulsory licenses for allowing drug exports to
LDCs with little or no manufacturing capabilities).

The proposed regulations permit exports to a country with little
or no manufacturing capacity, provided there is an corresponding
patent in the IMPORTING COUNTRY. This expectation is UNREALISTIC
as LDCs have up to 2016 to comply with TRIPS and many may not
have compulsory licensing in their National Patent Laws.

The drug exports need strengthening first because of the na-
tional economy and industry being able to keep domestic prices
down, but also because many poorer countries wanting to import
drugs are in debt, have limited resources and could serve larger
proportion of their citizens with medicines much needed at lower
costs.

5. Many countries and public interest groups have clearly indi-
cated their positions that there should be no patent on life.
Patenting of micro organisms, non biologicals and micro biologi-
cal processes are still under TRIPS review.

6. Definitions of national emergency, health emergency, environ-
mental emergency need to be spelt out clearly; with 1000 deaths
per day with HIV/AIDS in Africa. HIV/AIDS as national emergency
was still denied. Post Doha US tried to push for the definition
of public health to mean HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria. It was be-
cause of protests by drug and health activists and some develop-
ing countries that this was changed.

Dr. Mira Shiva
Director (Women Health & Development and Rational Drug Policy)