Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva broke the patent of the anti-AIDS drug efavirenz. Although there are many things in the scandal plagued Lula administration that deserve criticism, this action should be commended as a noble and brave measure that is part of a necessary endeavor: to have a humane AIDS policy.
Lula issued a compulsory license for efavirenz, which means that Brazil can now manufacture or buy generic versions of the drug while paying a small royalty to Merck, the drug’s manufacturer. The measure, although controversial, is allowed by the World Trade Organization in certain cases.
The Brazilian government decided to break the patent after negotiations with Merck failed to reduce the price of the drug to a satisfactory price.
Brazil is an excellent example of how government intervention can greatly benefit the construction of better health policies. The Brazilian AIDS policy is successful and used as a model for several countries across the world. By threatening to break their patents, the Brazilian government was able to significantly decrease the prices of several anti-AIDS drugs.
By aggressively pursuing these price reductions, the Brazilian government is able to provide free and universal access to antiretroviral drugs. Drug cocktails are very expensive, and there is no way that the poorer sections of society could have access to them without government help.
Intellectual rights activists may criticize this measure. However, there is a big difference between intellectual rights and a monopoly of knowledge. Knowledge is only useful when it is constructive for society – a monopoly of knowledge deprives people from the benefits of intellectual achievements.
The pharmaceutical industry’s search for even higher profits cannot interfere with a person’s, a people’s, and a nation’s health. At what point is it wrong to gain ridiculous profits on other peoples suffering? When is it ever right to sentence a person to death because of “intellectual rights?”
Some may argue that the break of patents will cause a decrease of investment in drug research. If that is so, then there is something extremely wrong with the current pharmaceutical system. Perhaps private investments fuelled by selfish impulses are not the best way to go about things.
There are other measures, however, that make Brazil’s AIDS policy one of the best in the world. The government has adopted a realist approach, recognizing that there is no way of preventing people from having sex. There have been significant investments on the promotion of condom use, and sexual education in schools is comprehensive. Throughout the year, and especially during Carnaval, it is common to see billboards featuring government sponsored condom advertisements, and government officials and NGO’s freely distribute preservatives.
In addition, the Brazilian government refused to stigmatize prostitution, thus renouncing a $40 million grant from the U.S., and decided instead to work with prostitutes to help prevent the spread of AIDS. This cooperation with prostitutes is indispensable since they are a high-risk group.
AIDS policy needs to be sensitive and adaptable to cultural differences; there is no one-size fits all model. However, there is lot to be learned from the Brazilian model. The prioritizations of health over profits and of realism over attempts to impose moral values are essential to combat this epidemic. Brazil and the U.S. have many similarities. Sex is predominant in both countries’ cultures, and even though a cultural revolution is possible, by the time it is done AIDS will have caused too much damage. Meanwhile, the best way to deal with the epidemic is by accepting and dealing with the realities of our culture, and making healthcare a priority.
No comments:
Post a Comment