Friday, February 16, 2007

Bad Medicine


News is how News looks. If you got bored of Shilpa Victim Shetty's tryst with "fame" or Anna Nicole Smith's, tragic as it was, death, well then go ahead, read this post.

At the risk of sounding redundant; medicine is one of the oldest industries of mankind. Well not in the contemporary meaning of the word, but something akin to a systematic labor for some useful purpose. But in the modern sense, it truly is an "industrialised" industry, where profits rule the roost.

At the heart of the medicine, or rather, pharmaceutical industry's future is a court case currently being fought in Madras, India over India's patent laws. Now here is what it is all about very briefly: In the 1970's India stopped issuing patents for medicines. This allowed its many drug producers to create generic copies of medicines still patent-protected in other countries - at a fraction of the price charged by Western drug firms. But in 1994 India signed up to the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Trips), a deal that required all WTO member countries to grant patents on technological products, including pharmaceuticals, by 2005. Drug companies have since been queuing up to patent their brands in India. Up to 9,000 patents await examination. A big pharmaceutical company, Novartis, is now arguing that India's requirement for drugs to be new and innovative is not in line with the TRIPS.

But here's the catch: Owing to its patent laws earlier India became a "pharmacy for the world's poor", providing generic variations of expensive drugs for diseases like AIDS at very cheap prices. A geneva based NGO,
MSF (medicines sans frontiers) says generic manufacturers have helped bring the cost of AIDS treatment down from $10,000 per patient per year in 2000, to just $130 now. Now the geo-political spread of AIDS is such that its the worlds poorest living in Africa, India and so on that will be affected most by this case.

Novartis, however, points out that nations are entitled to over-ride patent protection in the case of a national emergency. However, the countries that are trying to issue compulsory licences, which in some instances have been some of the more powerful middle-income countries, come under enormous pressure, and that pressure is noticed. Brazil has threatened compulsory licences three times. The drug companies have jumped up and down, and [the US] Congress has threatened to withdraw Brazil's trade preferences. So much for the humanisation of WTO.

At the face of it, I am not totally against Novartis. After all they have invested millions of dollars in making these medicines and if nothing, they at least deserve the rights over their intellectual property. After all it was someone's hard work.Or is it this simple?. Rather, this is more so a case of twisting some clauses in TRIPS agreement and pseudo-imperialist-capitalism. Like presenting medicines with just slight variations over the older ones as patentable.

And at the heart of it all, is the scary picture of capitalism that has emerged. The one where big companies form bigger lobbies and influence government decisions in their favour at the pretext of pseudo-intellectualism. Where the capital P is profit not people. And where
company policies might as well be renamed as double standards.

Don't get me wrong. I am not denying them their intellectual credit or the amount of effort put in by them to make life saving drugs. Neither am i morally defending generic manufacturers. But the world, as we see it has such an intrinsic complexity that sometime arguments which are more irrational and humane are more sense also. Sometimes we should step back from viewing the world with a business, scientific or intellectual perspective and just have humane common sense damn it!

5 comments:

Dilettante said...

The solution to escalating software cost and unfair patents was the rise of the free/open source community.
Do you think an open source approach to pharmacology is the answer here? It does seem implausible. The vast amount of effort and resources required in creating a drug necessitate a patent system but the worlds governments could sponsor and promote these efforts and take the less rational and more humane option.

Rider on the Storm said...

As you have mentioned, the amount of specialisation required in this field obviates any open-source type functioning. I think the need of the hour is in addressing the emergencies separately, in a more humanitarian way and at the same time also ensuring that intellectual property issue is not totally sidestepped here. Its a complex issue to address.

Ankita said...

Engineers are supposed to have a good analytical mind... u will make a nice ambassador for them...
:-)

Rider on the Storm said...

i will make a good ambassador for lot many more groups...like cynics, armchair critics etc :) anyways thanks for the comment!

Anonymous said...

The one year in Limbo that I spent, before I got to doing what I am now, gave me an insider's peek to the generic pharma industry.Some of the perspectives that I developed are:
1. Patent protection eventually leads to an ideal market, where street smart scientists have managed to tweek science and language to come up with zillion other medicines that do not infringe the prized patent, but for all practical purposes are the same.
2.In the process, they may inch towards new discoveries
3.Depending on the market need and product value, such equilibrium can be achieved in anywhere from 5 to 20 years.
4. In the meanwhile, to adress the spread of epidemic diseases, some businessmen-turned intellectual philanthropists assist in making the patent-protected medicines available to the needy. More such institutions are needed on the horizon.
5. The system, when perfected shall safeguard the motivations of the industry and help arrest the ruthless spread of disease