[e-drug] Editorial: Putting meaning back into TRIPS

["Sarah Rimmington" <srimmington@essentialinformation.org>]

E-DRUG: Editorial: Putting meaning back into TRIPS
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Bangkok Post
March 22, 2007

*EDITORIAL*

*Putting meaning back into TRIPS*

The decision by US-based Abbott Laboratories to withhold new medicines 
from Thailand certainly strikes at the heart of the government's efforts 
to secure life-saving medicine for all Thais. But the Ministry of Public 
Health must stand firm. Backing down now would send the wrong message to 
other pharmaceutical manufacturers, and deprive citizens of Thailand's 
rights under the World Trade Organisation's agreement on Trade-Related 
Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS).

It could be argued that the interim government's aggressive move to 
issue compulsory licences for several drugs without sufficiently warning 
each patent holder unnecessarily led to retaliation from Abbott. 
Possibly more pharmaceutical companies will follow suit in the days and 
weeks to come.

Yet prior negotiations with drug companies, as Public Health Minister 
Mongkol Na Songkhla explained at length in a white paper issued last 
month, largely amounts to a nicety that usually proves fruitless. 
Worldwide experience has shown that the iron stick of threatening to 
issue a compulsory licence is often the only negotiating tool drug 
companies seem to take seriously.

Indeed, Dr Mongkol mentioned that pharmaceutical companies did not 
cooperate with a working group set up in 2005 to negotiate for reduced 
drug prices. ''After one year, a short report of the working group 
concluded the failure of their work to reduce the price of the patented 
drugs,'' he wrote in the white paper.

Once the compulsory licences were issued, Big Pharma responded swiftly. 
In February, Merck agreed to lower the price for Efavirenz, the 
first-line Aids-fighting drug, to 700 baht per bottle from the 
pre-compulsory licence price of 1,400 baht.

Abbott Laboratories, by withdrawing its applications to market new drugs 
in Thailand, appears to be drawing a line in the sand as it hopes other 
countries will not start issuing compulsory licences for its drugs. 
Although some have argued the move is ''immoral'', Abbott is within its 
legal rights and is taking a hard-line stance _ not unlike Thai 
policy-makers.

Although Thailand's compulsory licences are legal under TRIPS, the 
government could do more to reassure the international community that 
its overriding of patents and importing of generic drugs was made ''in 
good faith to protect public health'' and will not be ''an instrument to 
pursue industrial or commercial policy objectives'', as the WTO deal 
stipulates.

In this respect, the Government Pharmaceutical Organisation should open 
its books or reveal its strategy to cope with increased generic 
production. Its facilities now do not meet World Health Organisation 
(WHO) standards, and thus none of the drugs produced at the GPO's 
current factory will meet global quality standards.

Abbott's decision to withdraw its new medicines will force Thailand to 
import a generic version of Kaletra [ritonavir/lopinavir] from India, which may not be bad for 
now since the GPO has yet to start building a new factory. Thai patients 
will rest easy knowing the drugs they are taking come from WHO 
pre-qualified factories, and taxpayers will be happy that money from the 
Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria can be used to pay 
for them.

In the meantime, Thailand's stance on compulsory licensing is important 
to test the TRIPS agreement. Although news wires are fond of calling 
Thailand's usage of compulsory licensing ''technically legal'' _ a 
loaded term _ the move is often blasted simply because few countries 
have resisted pressure from Big Pharma and certain Western governments 
and actually exercised their rights under TRIPS.

But, if Thailand gets criticised for following the TRIPS deal approved 
by every WTO member, including the United States, then what is the point 
of the agreement?

In issuing compulsory licences, Thailand is putting meaning back into 
TRIPS _ and forcing a renewed global debate on an issue Big Pharma would 
rather handle through bilateral trade deals with weaker nations.


-- 
Sarah Rimmington
Project Attorney
Essential Action, Access to Medicines Project
Washington, DC
Office: (202) 387-8030 x34
Mobile: (202) 422-2687
Sarah Rimmington <srimmington@essentialinformation.org>