|
TORONTO—The International AIDS Conference, held here
in August, was the largest ever, attracting some 26,000 participants. But
many must have gone home disappointed.
Despite a headline-grabbing donation by
Bill and Melinda Gates to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, and the release
of promising trial results of the first microbicide, or vaginal gel, to
stop HIV, the basic obstacle to the fight against HIV/AIDS in poor
countries remains. On the surface, the obstacle appears to be a
combination of bad laws and trade rules, but at bottom it is simply the
profit system, capitalism.
Antiretroviral therapies exist, but the
drugs are unaffordable to the millions of HIV/AIDS sufferers across
Africa and most poor countries. Why? Because the patents are held by
giant, name-brand firms—monopolies in the most profitable industry in the
world. In 2004 the Access to Medicine Regime law was passed (originally
called The Jean Chretien Pledge to Africa Act).
But after two years, according to the
international charitable organization Doctors Without Borders, the new
law, which was supposed to alleviate AIDS and other epidemics in Africa,
has not produced a single pill.
The battle over patents and control is an
expression of the conflict between health and profit. Which should
prevail, the public interest or private property?
Under enormous consumer pressure, in 1969
the Pierre Trudeau Liberal federal government passed legislation to
authorize "compulsory licensing". Until then, it had been
illegal to copy a prescription drug under patent.
Drug companies held 17-year monopoly
patent protection to keep drug prices as high as possible. But under the
compulsory licensing regime, qualified manufacturers, after paying a
royalty, were permitted to copy patented drugs and sell them at lower
prices. Prices fell and a new industry flourished.
Consumers were delighted, but the drug
giants were outraged, and they fought back. Globalization came to their
rescue. As secondary industry moved to low-wage countries, governments in
the developed world focused more on so-called knowledge industries, whose
profitability depends on ownership of ideas.
This new economy gained expression in the
rules of the World Trade Organization. It required free trade in goods
and capital, but it required monopolization (restricted trade) in what
came to be known as intellectual property.
In 1993, Brian Mulroney’s Conservative
federal government virtually eliminated Canada’s compulsory licensing
scheme for drugs. And when Jean Chretien’s Liberals regained power later
that year, they did not reinstate it.
So, it’s hardly surprising that
Chretien’s Pledge to Africa law has proven worse than useless. It
contains safeguards for the drug giants, to ensure that cheap generics
are not diverted back to Canada. But the burden and complexity of the
regulations has inhibited production and shipment, thus dooming millions
of AIDS victims to unnecessary misery and an early death.
Will the International AIDS Conference
2006, and related ongoing campaigns, convince the federal Tories to amend
the law? Will they enable Canada to become an important source of drugs
for the developing world?
Federal Health Minister Tony Clement
promised an immediate review of the legislation. But he hardly could have
promised any less, especially as he tried to dodge the flak resulting
from Prime Minister Harper’s refusal to attend the Conference, and Harper’s
cancellation of a major funding announcement.
In any case, how likely is it that these
capitalist vultures will bite the hands that feed
them?
|
