By : G. Torrieri, torrieri [at] physics.arizona.edu
Two sponsors, of the present AIDSWalk, pharmaceutical corporations Glaxo-Wellcome and Bristol-Myers Squibb, have successfully asked the US government to sue Brazil in a World Trade Organisation (WTO) court. The lawsuit's aim is preventing that country' government from issuing compulsory generic licenses for some AIDS treatment drugs, as part of Brazil's policy of treating AIDS as a national emergency. Similar lawsuits were filed against India and South Africa, although the South African dispute was scaled down after it became clear the pharmaceutical companies's continuation of the suit would mean a public relations disaster.
The high price of many anti-AIDS drugs, especially those making up the
so-called "Cocktail", make them unaccessible to over
90% of the world's AIDS sufferers.
This price is almost entirely due to licensing costs under international
trade treaties.
Preventing developing countries
from developing cheaper generic versions of AIDS drugs effectively bars most of
the world's AIDS sufferers from treatment.
It also holds back the diffusion of modern science and technology
in the developing world, and breaches the sovereignity
of these countries in a life-and-death matter. (it should be noted, in this
regard, that the US has a law on the books giving the federal government authority
to override licensing costs in times of national emergency).
Oxfam, perhaps the most estabilished NGO dealing with developing
world issues, has characterized these lawsuits as a "war on the
world's poor" [1],
and several US rapresentatives denounced US involvment in them
[5]
The pharmaceutical companies claim that global trade treaties give them
exclusive rights to negotiating the patenting of these drugs on their
own terms. Technically, the WTO tribunals did rule in favour of these
companies in the South African suit. However, as WTO hearings are
conducted behind closed doors, and since their lack of impartiality has now
been widely documented, we are not at all convinced about the legal
aspects of this ruling.
Certainly, so far international trade traties do allow
to over-ride licensing in a national emergency
[2]
Pharmaceutical companies also claim that they are safeguarding the
"incentive" to spend millions of dollars in costly drug development.
This is an extremely misleading position, as most of these millions
of dollars actually came from the US taxpayer.
The Consumer Project on Technology did an excellent exposure
on the extent of US government subsidy of pharmaceutical research, and specifically
the development of those AIDS drugs is now regarded as exclusive "Intellectual property" by Glaxo and Bristol-Myers.
[3]. The same document gives the view of some of the leading
AIDS scientists of how the fruits of their publically funded research are being prevented
from reaching some of the people who need them most in the name of private profit.
Aside from the legality and commercial aspects of the matter, we think there is no doubt that
denying treatment to the world's poorest AIDS patients for commercial
reasons is not just uncharitable. It is inhumane.
The unprecedented profit margins pharmaceutical multinationals have enjoyed for years
make any claim that they need to protect their economic existance by denying poor countries
the right to manufacture their own medicines laughable.
Their claims that the problem needs to be resolved via international aid rings extremely hollow
given that allowing developing countries to manufacture their own drugs would allow millions
of people to get treated at no cost to the US tax-payer (or to themselves!).
Finally, their offers to sell to poor countries at a discount price have been judged as inadequate by
just about anyone who works with AIDS in developing countries.
In short, we believe the conduct of pharmaceutical multinationals, including Glaxo
and Bristol-Myers, can not reasonably qualify them as charitable and public-minded
organisations.
This is an extremely valid point.
We understand that the Southern Arizona AIDS foundation runs on a very
limited budget,and are perfectly aware that corporate sponsorship is
essential in organizing an event of the scope of the AIDS walk.
We also understand that charitable organisations
accept sponsorhip from companies engaged in less than ethical conduct
all the time, and accepting sponsorship from a company does not
automatically mean condoning or accepting the company's practices.
In this case, however, the sponsors conduct is directly and adversely
affecting the worlds poorest AIDS patients, the very people that we,
as individuals concerned about AIDS, are supposed to be helping.
Because of this, and given the plethora of organizations from all walks of
life who are helping SAAF and the present AIDS walk,
we believe that allowing the pharmaceutical companies to aquire a misleadingly
charitable public image through a comparatively small donation
will, in the long run, do much more harm to AIDS patients than taking a
principled stand. The only way available to us, as concerned individuals,
to put pressure on these companies to change their
conduct is to expose it to public scrutiny.
If this issue has outraged you enough,