Aids: US Obligation to Third World Countries - Essay Example

?(Add (Add (Add Aids: US Obligation to Third World Countries Introduction Despite billions of dollars are being spent on AIDS drug development every year, acquired immune deficiency syndrome or simply AIDS still remains to be the deadliest disease of the 21st century. Since an effective drug is yet to be developed for treating this fatal disease, probability of survival is zero for AIDS victims. While analyzing the prevalence of AIDS in global countries, it seems that the rate is higher in third world countries, especially in Africa. It is clear that well planned awareness campaigns, community initiatives, and other intervention programs are necessary to curb the likelihood of AIDS infection in poorly developed countries. Naturally, government needs to raise huge funds to promote such programs. However, third world countries do not have sufficient money to spend on the intervention and prevention activities. Hence, economically and industrially developed countries, especially the United States have a moral obligation to fight AIDS in third world countries. This paper will specifically discuss to what extent the US has obligation to third world countries in fighting AIDS and how this commitment relates to manufacturing of generic drugs by US pharmaceutical companies. US obligation to third world countries Reports indicate that poorly developed countries including Zimbabwe, Zambia, Uganda, Tanzania, Namibia, Mozambique, Malawi, Lesotho, Botswana, and South Africa have a higher prevalence rate of AIDS. World’s top 19 countries with highest prevalence of AIDS belong to Africa. In South Africa alone, there are over 5 million people living with the disease and the country is ranked as the largest population of HIV infected. While assessing the initiatives taken by African countries to curb the prevalence of AIDS, it seems that none of them was either thoughtfully structured or effectively implemented. The failure of African countries in fighting AIDS can be directly attributed to their weaker economic status. As scholars point out, since “Africa is the world’s poorest inhabited continent” the countries in this continent cannot heavily invest in public welfare funds (Prabhakar). This situation indicates that the dominance of AIDS is likely to increase in African countries over the coming years. Since AIDS is an avoidable disease, its prevalence in African countries as well as other third world countries can be reduced considerably if those countries get financial assistance from industrially developed overseas nations. Therefore, the United States, the largest national economy in the world, has a moral obligation (but not legal) to assist poorly developed global economies in fighting AIDS. Even though the US economy has been struggling for the last few years due to the impacts of global financial crisis 2008-09, the country has still numerous potential resources to raise funds. An effective US intervention in third world countries would control AIDS transmission to a great extent. Many US multinational corporate giants like Coca Cola have business interests in various third world countries across the globe. Many of those companies raise revenues from underdeveloped countries by selling poor quality products (because people of poorly developed counties are less concerned about the product quality). Thus, third world counties markedly contribute to the GDP growth of the United States. In addition, since governments’ health and environment regulations are not effective in underdeveloped countries, majority of the US corporate giants are taking unfair advantages of the situation. Global health bodies including World Health Organization report that multinational corporations’ business activities cause numerous health issues in third world countries and this situation compels those countries to spend more on their healthcare sector. To illustrate, as Hales reports, US dumps toxic computer wastes in third world countries and this situation risks labors who process and recycle the waste. Furthermore, such waste dumping activities raise potential threats to environmental sustainability as they lead to global warming and climate change. In short, the United States’ business or growth interests cause third world countries to increase their public sector spending and therefore the nation has an ethical responsibility to aid those countries in fighting AIDS. Admittedly, developed countries have been helping poorly developed economies to reduce the prevalence rate of AIDS. In today’s business world, the concept of corporate social responsibility is of significant importance and therefore corporations have noticeably increased their investments in social welfare funds. Hence, majority of the economically developed countries such as the United Kingdom and France extend their hands to third world countries in fighting AIDS. The contribution of even developing countries like India and China is also considerable in this respect. So, the US should also has a social obligation to assist third world counties in preventing AIDS and this policy may in turn aid the country to improve its stature among other global countries. Moreover, AIDS prevention assistance to third world countries is a humane action. Biblically, humans have the moral obligation to lend a hand to their struggling neighbors. Scholars opine that helping third world countries is the best strategy to create a stable and non-hostile global environment. Every country possesses one or other form of resource and hence a mutual corporation between countries would be beneficial for the creation of a global economy. Many economists opine that the concept of global economy would fuel the United States’ overall economic growth. Obviously, the United States can strengthen its world leadership position by assisting third world countries to control AIDS transmission. Role of US pharmaceutical companies US pharmaceutical companies’ attitude towards fighting AIDS in third world countries has significantly changed over the last decade. They have realized the importance of delivering corporate social responsibility programs in ensuring their business sustainability. As Bennett and Randall point out, the Californian based Gilead Sciences, the leading manufacturer of world’s priciest AIDS drugs (it acquired nearly $6 billion in AIDS drugs sales during the last year), has notably contributed to the development of world’s first successful protective agent against HIV virus. The company donated the protective agent’s key ingredient (a pill called Viread) and permitted a cost free license to Conrad, a nonprofit reproductive health organization that plans to distribute the developed gel among the African population. Although many poor people live in the US too, they have several other ways to get access to AIDS drugs at an affordable rate. However, this is not the case of poor people living in third world countries. Hence, the US pharmaceutical industry gives specific focus on AIDS drug distribution in poor countries. Until the recent years, pharmaceutical companies used to charge huge prices for AIDS drugs like Viread in third world countries. They were barely profit driven companies and therefore they did not maintain a humanitarian facet while dealing with underdeveloped countries. However, the emergence of a new business era and thereby stiff market competition forced those companies to reduce profit margins on AIDS medicines. As a result, US pharmaceutical companies have been slashing their AIDS drug prices and granting royalty free or nominal cost licenses to nonprofit organizations or local manufacturers in third world countries. In addition, many US nonprofit organizations are taking initiatives to supply HIV drugs in regions where the infection is highly endemic. This favorable situation greatly assists poorly developed economies to provide AIDS medicines to their population at an affordable rate. AIDS activists point that African population might not have believed 10 years ago that they would get complicated AIDS drug regimes affordably. According to a report by Bennett & Randall, a GlaxoSmithKline subsidiary recently announced that the company would not make any license regulation on some of the AIDS drugs it is developing in world’s 60 poorest developed nations where approximately 80% of the AIDS victims live. Manufactures of generic AIDS drugs have been under pressure to improve their products’ accessibility and affordability in third world counties since an international AIDS convention held in South Africa in 2000. Two years after this convention, the former US President George W. Bush announced his plans to provide antiretroviral drugs for roughly 2 million HIV victims in Africa and the Caribbean on the strength of his $15 billion AIDS package (Avert). The US government offers financial assistance to the country’s pharmaceutical companies to distribute HIV drugs in underdeveloped countries at discounted price rates. While distributing generic AIDS drugs in the Third World, US companies would get publicity and this in turn would help them to cut down their promotional expenses to a great extent. It is observed that US AIDS drug manufactures sell their products in different sizes, shapes, and colors in poorly developed nations with intent to lower the likelihood of those drugs reaching the United States or Europe through black market channels. In response to WHO and UN pressures, many of the US pharmaceutical companies have begun to cut their drug prices for the Third World. McNeil reports that five world’s leading pharmaceutical companies including two US based companies (Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck & Company) initiated their plans to offer steep HIV drug price cuts in Africa and other underdeveloped regions of the globe. They have also made special arrangement to ensure that the offered price benefits are properly delivered to the target population. These pharmaceutical companies get external assistance from other nonprofit interest groups in delivering price discounted HIV drugs to the beneficiaries concerned. In addition, the US Federal Government assists its pharmaceutical companies to reduce the total cost of production and thereby get rid of the profitability decline. While US pharmaceutical companies offer their generic AIDS drugs at a discounted rate to the Third World, naturally the companies would realize increased sales. Consequently, this condition would assist those firms to take advantages of bulk raw material purchase and other large scale operations. Even though US companies are offering generic AIDS drugs to the Third World at a discounted rate, they (companies) frequently raise their concerns about the future consequences of those risky concessions. Their argument is that the skimpy prices would raise potential challenges to their research and development budgets and would impede the flow of valuable new drugs. Conclusion In total, the United States has moral obligation to offer its support to third world countries in fighting AIDS. The US has already realized the significance of helping poor people in the underdeveloped world. Hence, the country is providing extensive AIDS drug packages to the Third World. This shift is seen in the US pharmaceutical industry also. Many US pharmaceutical industries today offer drugs to third world countries at fairly low rates. Works Cited Avert. “PEPFAR and the global health initiative: The creation of PEPFAR.” President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS relief (PEPFAR). (n.d). Web. 14 May 2012. Bennett, Simeon & Randall, Tom. “AIDS drugs flow to the third world.” Bloomberg Businessweek. (2010). Web. 14 May 2012. Hales, Paul. “US dumps computer waste on third world.” The Inquirer. (26 February 2002). Web. 14 May 2012. McNeil, Donald G. “Companies to cut cost of AIDS drugs for poor nations.” The New York Times: International. (12 May 2000). Web. 14 May 2012. Prabhakar, Akhilesh Chandra. “Political economy of development & poverty in Africa: An overview.” INS South, (2008). 1-33. Web 14 May 2012 Read More