New Internationalist

Patent busting

July 2007

Getting up Big Pharma’s nose in order to save lives

Adrees Latif / Reuters
Demanding fair treatment: protestors outside the US emabassy in Bangkok, May 2007. Adrees Latif / Reuters

Until he was appointed Minister of Public Health last October, Mongkol na Songkla was known among sections of Thailand’s medical community for his work among the poor. He had spent over 10 years as a doctor healing patients in the country’s remote north and northeast provinces, where poverty abounds. And this experience informs the way he has approached his new job, as a defiant champion for sick people. His mission: to secure affordable generic drugs for patients desperately in need of treatment for HIV/AIDS and heart disease.

By May, the success of his drive was winning praise across the world. His list of admirers included former US President Bill Clinton, the Government of Brazil and, most recently, the public health officials who endorsed Bangkok’s fight for cheaper generic drugs at the World Health Assembly in Geneva. Most vocal have been a growing chorus of grassroots and civil society groups who have come to the defence of Thailand by mounting boycotts of Big Pharma and concerted media campaigns. They see Bangkok’s achievement in the same light as some do revolutions: it has the potential to reshape the global public health landscape as we know it – in this case, the poor in the South being denied essential drugs by the pharmaceutical giants in the North.

Since late last year Thailand has invoked a clause in the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO) called ‘compulsory licences’. This feature grants developing countries the flexibility to break patents on drugs produced by Big Pharma when faced with a national health crisis. Until now, developing countries had been forced to stay clear of this public health option due to pressure from economic powerhouses like the United States. History, though, is replete with rich nations doing otherwise; most recently, when the West forced the Swiss producer of a drug to counter the deadly avian influenza to give up its patent so that generic alternatives could be produced.

The pharmaceutical giants targeted in Bangkok’s ground-breaking attempt are Abbott, which produces the anti-retroviral (ARV) drugs Kaletra and Aluvia; Merck Sharp and Dhome, which produces the ARV Efavirenz; and Sanofi-Aventis, which holds the patent for Palvis, a blood-thinner. Abbott tried to force Thailand to backtrack by refusing to register seven new drugs there, including treatments for HIV, kidney disease and blood clots. A hostile Thai-bashing campaign by pro-pharma lobbies ensued. Even the US Government got into the act, placing Thailand on a watchlist of countries that violated intellectual property rights.

Yet Bangkok has not blinked. It believes that the power of the pharmaceutical lobby to secure profits over public health is out of step with WTO provisions for the developing world. Washington, for all its tough talk, said as much in early May. ‘While the US acknowledges a country’s ability to issue such licences in accordance with WTO rules, the lack of transparency and due process exhibited in Thailand represents a serious concern,’ stated a report by the US Trade Representative’s Office.

Boripat Dornmon, a 40-year-old who has been living with HIV for 11 years, has reason to feel more hopeful. Voicing a sentiment that the other 600,000 Thais infected with the killer disease will also share, he says: ‘We need the new, cheap drugs to live longer.’

*Marwaan Macan-Markar*

This column was published in the July 2007 issue of New Internationalist. To read more, buy this issue or subscribe.

Comments on Patent busting

Leave your comment







 

  • Maximum characters allowed: 5000
  • Simple HTML allowed: bold, italic, and links

Registration is quick and easy. Plus you won’t have to re-type the blurry words to comment!
Register | Login

...And all is quiet.

Subscribe to Comments for this articleArticle Comment Feed RSS 2.0

Guidelines: Please be respectful of others when posting your reply.

Get our free fortnightly eNews

Multimedia

Videos from visionOntv's globalviews channel.

Related articles

Recently in Currents

All Currents

Popular tags

All tags

This article was originally published in issue 402

New Internationalist Magazine issue 402
Issue 402

More articles from this issue

  • Burundi

    July 1, 2007

    A small landlocked state in central Africa, sandwiched between its vast neighbours Tanzania and Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi has suffered as much from ethnic conflict as its other (equally tiny) neighbour, Rwanda. Yet while the 1993 Rwandan genocide continues to commandeer international attention, Burundi’s travails tend to slip under the radar.

  • Of robbers and plants

    July 1, 2007

    Economic crunch in Mauritius

  • Edible Earth

    July 1, 2007

    In search of bright ideas, David Ransom begins by learning some very basic lessons about how to design a more sustainable, permanent culture.

New Internationalist Magazine Issue 436

If you would like to know something about what's actually going on, rather than what people would like you to think was going on, then read the New Internationalist.

– Emma Thompson –

A subscription to suit you

Save money with a digital subscription. Give a gift subscription that will last all year. Or get yourself a free trial to New Internationalist. See our choice of offers.

Subscribe