|
|
BY OUR CORRESPONDENT
18 November,2006: Global drug giants Pfizer and Novartis have come under fire for denying denying access to new medicine to poorer countries.
In a report, Patents vs Patients: Five Years After the Doha Declaration, the NGO Oxfam International accused Novartis and Pfizers' of putting barriers to the fair and successful implementation of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.
In 2001, members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) enacted the declaration, which asserts that intellectual property rules should not prevent countries from protecting health.
Oxfam International's report calls for the cessation of lawsuits currently being pursued by Novartis and Pfizer against governments in developing countries.
In spite of the aims of the Doha Declaration, nearly three in four AIDS medicines are still under monopoly (77 per cent of Africans still have no access to AIDS treatment) and 30 per cent of the global population still do not have regular access to essential medicines, according to the World Health Organisation.
The report (available via www.oxfam.org.uk) points out that generic competition is being curbed to help keep drug prices high, which is happening because relatively wealthy nations - largely the US, -are `bullying developing countries to impose stricter intellectual property rules in order to preserve pharmaceutical monopolies'.
The two case studies to which the report refers include Pfizer's reaction to the Philippine government which, following certain tests, gave a regulatory approval for a cheaper version of cardiovascular drug Norvasc; this would be made available from June 2007, when Pfizer's current patent expires. The company is defending itself against this action, reportedly by way of suing the government. The key point, the report asserts, is that Pfizer's reaction limits the Philippines' ability to exercise its right, under TRIPS to protects its inhabitants' health.
Similarly, Novartis is dealing with an insurgence in India by several cancer patient groups which used intellectual property law to prevent the Swiss firm making a patent application for anti-cancer drug Glivec, thereby enabling Indian generics manufacturers to produce the product at a 90 per cent discount. Novartis' defence is that Indian intellectual property law does not align with the TRIPS agreement, and hence it should be permitted to provide Glivec under patent protection.
Health care groups and NGOs have been rising a lot of hue and cry on Novartis action of even approaching higher courts blaming the new Indian patent laws to get the Glivec decision revoked.
BY OUR PHARMA CORRESPONDENT |
