How the West sacrifices the rest

by expatbrit 27 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  expatbrit

  Sometimes you can only shake your head: US blocks cheap drugs agreement The deal was agreed by 143 countries The United States has blocked an international agreement to allow poor countries to buy cheap drugs.

  One-hundred and forty-three countries stood on the same ground, we were hoping to make that unanimous Sergio Marchi Canada's negotiator

  This means millions of poor people will still not have access to medicines for diseases such as HIV/Aids, malaria and tuberculosis.

  US negotiators say the deal would allow too many drugs patents to be ignored.

  Talks have now been rescheduled for February, but the international medical organisation, Medecins Sans Frontieres, told the BBC that there was little chance of them succeeding.

  Hopes dashed

  The talks, held at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, broke up early on Saturday.

  "I have to say, there is no way to sugar-coat this bitter pill. We are disappointed," the Canadian representative, Sergio Marchi said.

  Aids drugs are too expensive for many governments

  "One-hundred and forty-three countries stood on the same ground, we were hoping to make that unanimous."

  The principle of allowing developing countries access to cheap versions of drugs still protected by copyright had been agreed at WTO talks a year ago.

  But it is not clear if that principle can be turned into a detailed agreement that all sides are happy with.

  Under current rules, countries are required to respect drugs patents for 20 years.

  Critics say this delays the production of much cheaper generic medicines, which are needed in developing countries because patients and health services cannot afford the more expensive versions.

  The WTO talks are aimed at relaxing the rules on intellectual property rights to enable countries in need to import cheaper versions of essential drugs.

  While the talks have dragged on through the year, the problem of HIV/Aids has grown worse.

  Figures released by the United Nations last month showed that more than 40 million people are now living with the disease.

  Consensus not possible

  The United States said the proposed deal would mean that illnesses that are not infectious, such as diabetes and asthma, could also be treated with cheap, generic drugs.

  This is not just a failure of the Geneva talks, but of two years of negotiations Medecins Sans Frontieres

  The US negotiator, Linnet Deily, said her country "could not meet the consensus on the issue".

  In sub-Saharan Africa, nearly 30 million people are estimated to be infected with the HIV/Aids virus.

  African negotiators say the fears expressed by the United States are unfounded.

  "Any attempt to redefine this declaration will unravel the careful balance achieved on many issues," Kenyan negotiator Amina Chawahir Mohamed told the Geneva meeting, the AFP news agency reports.

  The medical organisation Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) told BBC News Online that it was now "time to find solutions outside the WTO".

  "If there had been any flexibility to reach an agreement, the United States would have shown that flexibility.

  "This is not just a failure of the Geneva talks, but of two years of negotiations," Ellen 'pHoen said.

  She said individual countries should now go ahead and allow their own pharmaceutical industries to export to other countries that need cheaper drugs.

  MSF argues that that is already allowed for under the 1994 agreement brokered by the World Trade Organisation.

  Such moves would almost certainly trigger disputes with the US and major western drugs companies which the WTO would have to settle.
• 

  animal

  Take away patent rights, and you take away any reason for manufacturing a product. Companies dont invest millions of $$ just to give it all away.

  Also, the WTO should have never been given an exsistance.

  Animal
• 

  Realist

  its a tough tough problem. on one hand you cannot allow papent laws to be ignored (although the pharma industry makes gigantic profits which could certainly be cut back a little bit) ...on the other hand people die.

  i would say the best solution would be that these idiotic countries (africa etc.) buy the rights from the companies instead of buying tanks and other weapons...but its not gonna happen
• 

  expatbrit

  The deal was about relaxing intellectual property rights, not taking them away entirely.

  Consider that drug companies are recouping (and more so) their R&D expenditure just by selling their drugs in the Western world. Profit margins (and hefty ones) are built into this selling price. Selling those same drugs cheaper at cost to the developing world while maintaining Western prices would therefore have no effect upon the recovery of R&D, which btw is heavily subsidised by most Western governments.

  What the Western drug companies are afraid of is that Western consumers will want the same cheap prices and that generic drug companies will market these drugs at the cheap price in the West. But this is what governments are for, to ensure that commercial systems operate for the benefit of society. By rejecting the agreement, the US government has failed in this.

  It's very easy to say "taking away patent rights takes away the reason for manufacturing a product", but that is not what's happening here. What's happening is that the West is denying medicine to the developing world simply to prevent a perceived threat to profit margins.

  Is it any wonder the rest of the World looks to the West with bitterness?

  Expatbrit
• 

  Vee

  I see your point Animal, that drugs like this would not exist if it were't for the billions of $$ invested...but is it still not inconceivable that a price can be put on the value of millions, and some who will without question suffer and die an excruciating death that could otherwise be prevented if the laws were lifted? There is the question that if the patent laws were lifted where would it stop, but perhaps it is long overdue for the entire structure to be reviewed and overhauled to come in line with basic humanitarian principles, such a thing cannot possibly happen without some sacrifice on both sides...but which side is it that has sacrificed far too much already? After all how long ago was it that these laws were put in place?...that is a question as I myself do not know. Was it in a time before these drugs, the only means to treat millions were available, or even available in such large quantities to be of benefit in a situation like this? It really is only a matter of time before this wall comes down, those standing in the way cannot possibly hold it back forever, or even that much longer with the rising statistics that appear in papers every week.

  It reminds me of earlier on in the year where the US would not come to the party on the environmental treaty that was drafted as a follow-up to the Kyoto treaty. This was because it would be too much of a sacrifice financially on their industries one that they weren't prepared to make. And yet the US themselves are the largest producers of greenhouse gas emitions. Pres Bush stated their goal is to reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions "relative to the size of the US economy".

  Thank-you for posting this expatbrit :-)
• 

  Realist

  extrabit,

  what you propose is almost impossible to establish. what would hinder people for instance to setup an office in lets say south africa and then send the cheap generic drugs to the US and europe?

  again if these countries want the drugs than they have to pay the price...buy less weapons and get the patent laws.

  to blame the western world is not quite fair...without us these drugs wouldn't exist in the first place.
• 

  Simon

  Pharmaceutical companies are not charities and they exist to maximise their shareholder value.

  The problem lies with governments who become 'protectionist'.

  Now, given that the entertainment industry works by price fixing their products for different markets so that people pay what they can affort and the market will accept (eg. region encoding on DVDs) then why can't they have different pricing for drugs too?
• 

  expatbrit

  Simon:

  That's a very good point.

  I'm firmly a believer in the principles of free trade. Let the market decide the price of goods and services.

  The current patent laws preserve patents for 20 years. 20! This creates a monopoly situation and prevents the operation of the free market. Patents are a valuable tool for generating new products, yet excessive protection of patent holders creates a drag on trade development.

  In other words, patent laws need overhauling, so that they allow the drug companies the minimum period required to recoup their R&D expenditure, but then expire to allow the market to decide the price of the drugs.

  It's also a very short-sighted approach to sacrifice long-term consumers for short-term profits. One of the greatest hindrances to the developing world is poor healthcare. By helping to solve that problem with relaxed patent shackles, Western governments can create millions of new profitable consumers in the future. This is the principle of enlightened self-interest, as opposed to the brutal self-interest being exhibited currently.

  Expatbrit
• 

  Pathofthorns

  very sad.

  Path
• 

  animal

  I take drugs for thyroid replacemenet, and for high cholestral... and they are expensive as hell. Now, if these drugs I pay hundreds of dollars for were available to others at a cheaper price, I would wonder why I have to pay so much.

  Another part of the problem here in the USA is that any drug sold has to be approved by the FDA, or not be sold here. This process takes years, and much money. Countries like Mexico do not have those approval rules and sell similar drugs way cheaper. Many here in Arizona drive to Mexico and buy thier drugs. I am tempted myself.

  To me, there shouldnt be a price based on what you can afford. That just punishes those of us that work, unfairly. It is socialism at its finest.

  Animal