Debate Topic - Research Paper Example

9 April Generic Drugs and Patent-less Drugs The Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement of the WorldTrade Organization creates minimum standards for intellectual property rights (Williams 1). TRIPS demands developing countries to commence property rights legislation that are the same with the developed countries (Williams 1). TRIPS assert that developing countries must adjust existing national legislation to ramp up property rights and expand coverage to all areas including medicines (Williams 1).

Furthermore, property rights protection must have, at a minimum, a twenty-year protection (Williams 1). Many developing countries had not covered medicines and pharmaceutical products, because of its disadvantages to generic drug research and production. Multinational Corporations (MNCs) should manufacture cheap generic life saving drugs for poor countries or give up their patents to others who want to make generic drugs, because it will save millions of lives, allow development of generic and patent-less drugs, and breed innovation.

The poor have the right to free or cheaper generic drugs and MNCs should not hinder them from getting the pharmaceutical products they need. The pros of cheap generic life saving drugs or giving up drug patents are: 1) Millions of lives are saved, 2) Other drug companies can develop cheaper drugs or patent-less drugs that will benefit the public, and 3) Large companies will benefit from innovation, because they will no longer have to depend on their blockbuster products for revenues, and instead, they will be pushed to develop generic life saving drugs.

Boseley reports about Glaxo which stopped Africans from buying a cheaper version of its AIDS Drugs. It is an inhumane act, because South Africa only wants to do something right- to help its own people, which large drug MNCs are not looking after. AIDS drugs, for instance, are already being widely developed as generic drugs in India and Brazil, according to Shah and the Economist. They are finding ways to help respond to the overwhelming demand for generic or patent-less drugs. If the MNCs do not want to provide generic versions of their drugs, then the following solutions are forwarded. 1. To lower the price of the product, so the minorities can also afford it.

They should lower their products competitively compared to generic drugs (The Economist). The poor can still be their market through selling cheaper medicine to their government, who in turn can provide the medicine for free or for lower prices. 2. Government should help with tax incentive on the product. They should give MNCs tax incentives, so that they can greatly lower the prices of their products and make them more affordable for the poor. 3. To lower the patent life to 5-6 years, so another company can sell it afterwards.

The government should not follow TRIPs policies on patenting and follow the least years of patenting instead. 4. Government should provide tax incentives for smaller biomedical companies in emerging economies, so that they can invent affordable treatments for a variety of neglected diseases which hardly ever make headlines, but involve almost a billion people in some way (Shah). These tax incentives should promote the development of generic drugs. 5. Governments should enact “Bolar provisions”, which permit generic firms to undertake research and development work on drugs still under patent (The Economist).

This way, once the patent has lapsed; other companies can release their generic drugs faster for the public. 6. MNCs should allow voluntary licensing or compulsory licensing for life-saving products, not lifestyle products. In a compulsory license, a government compels the holder of a patent, copyright, or other exclusive right to grant use to the state or others. Frequently, the holder does receive some royalties, by law or determined through arbitration. Voluntary licensing involves the patent holder providing license to other parties,” on an exclusive or nonexclusive basis, the right to manufacture, import, and/or distribute a pharmaceutical product” (World Health Organization).

MNCs should know that it is not ethical to charge exorbitant prices on life-saving drugs. They should manufacture cheap generic life saving drugs for poor countries or give up their patents to others who want to make generic drugs, because it will save millions of lives, permit the development of generic and patent-less drugs, and raise innovation. MNCs can still make money through different licensing agreements, but not as high as they want to. They have to consider the morality of their pricing and patenting policies, when millions of lives are at stake.

Outline of the paper 1. The Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement of the World Trade Organization creates minimum standards for intellectual property rights. 1.1 TRIPS assert that developing countries must adjust existing national legislation to ramp up property rights and expand coverage to all areas including medicines (Williams 1). Furthermore, property rights protection must have, at a minimum, a twenty-year protection (Williams 1). 1.2 Many developing countries had not covered medicines and pharmaceutical products, because of its disadvantages to generic drug research and production. 1.3 Multinational Corporations (MNCs) should manufacture cheap generic life saving drugs for poor countries or give up their patents to others who want to make generic drugs, because it will save millions of lives, allow development of generic and patent-less drugs, and breed innovation. 2. The poor have the right to free or cheaper generic drugs and MNCs should not hinder them from getting the pharmaceutical products they need. 2.1 Millions of lives are saved. 2.2 Other drug companies can develop cheaper drugs or patent-less drugs that will benefit the public. 2.3 Large companies will benefit from innovation, because they will no longer have to depend on their blockbuster products for revenues, and instead, they will be pushed to develop generic life saving drugs. 3. If the MNCs do not want to provide generic versions of their drugs, then the following solutions are forwarded. 3.1 To lower the price of the product, so the minorities can also afford it. 3.2 Government should help with tax incentive on the product. 3.3 To lower the patent life to 5-6 years, so another company can sell it afterwards. 3.4 Government should provide tax incentives for smaller biomedical companies in emerging economies, so that they can invent affordable treatments for a variety of neglected diseases which hardly ever make headlines, but involve almost a billion people in some way (Shah). 3.5 Governments should enact “Bolar provisions”, which permit generic firms to undertake research and development work on drugs still under patent (The Economist). 3.6 MNCs should allow voluntary licensing or compulsory licensing for life-saving products, not lifestyle products. 4. MNCs should know that it is not ethical to charge exorbitant prices on life-saving drugs. 4.1 They should manufacture cheap generic life saving drugs for poor countries or give up their patents to others who want to make generic drugs, because it will save millions of lives, permit the development of generic and patent-less drugs, and raise innovation. 4.2 MNCs can still make money through different licensing agreements, but not as high as they want to. 4.3 They have to consider the morality of their pricing and patenting policies, when millions of lives are at stake.

Works Cited Boseley, Sarah. Glaxo Stops Africans Buying Cheap AIDS Drugs. Guardian.co.uk, 2 Dec. 2000. Web. 8 April 2011 . Shah, Anup. Pharmaceutical Corporations and Medical Research. Global Issues, 2010. Web. 8 April 2011 < http://www.globalissues.org/article/52/pharmaceutical-corporations-and-medical-research>. The Economist. Screwing the Brand Names. The Economist, 16 Sept. 2004. Web. 8 April 2011 . Williams, Mariama. The TRIPS and Public Health Debate: An Overview. 2001. Web. 8 April 2011 .

World Health Organization. Cost-Containment Mechanisms for Essential Medicines, Including Antiretrovirals, in China - Health Economics and Drugs Series No. 013. 2003. 8 April 2011 .