MEDICINES AND DRUGS ARE TOO EXPENSIVE: Developing Countries are Being Cheated by International Pharmaceutical Giants

by David Kulemela

Read the heading on the poster inviting people to come and enjoy the heated up public debate between the final year Bachelor of Pharmacy (Hons.) students of the College of Medicine, who were for the motion and Professor John Reid, Regius Professor of Medicine, University of Glasgow in the United Kingdom on 11th February 2009. Indeed, the debate proved time worth as both sides had convincing and compelling arguments but at the end of it all it was for the audience to judge who was more compelling of the two. I would forgive the professor, he was alone. Despite trying to buy the audience’s vote he did not succeed (joking! Idzangobwera ACB). The students had technology on their side (powerpoint).

Here is how the two presented their arguments;
The Students [represented by Collins Minyaliwa and Lumbani Makwakwa (no need for salutations (Mr) since they are all male in their class! No offence.)]

i. INTRODUCTION
• Medicines improve, extend and save lives
• A well-functioning health system ensures equitable access to essential medicines of assured quality, efficacy, safety & cost-effectiveness.
• But this is far from being achieved in developing countries. For large sections of the global population essential medicines, even if available, are unaffordable

ii. PATENTS
• Patents are temporary monopolies granted by government.
• Too long- under international rules patents are granted for a minimum of 20yrs.
• Drugs are still high even after patent period is over
• Patents cannot generate innovations where there is no market e.g. only 13 of 1393 new drugs developed between 1975 – 99 are for Tropical diseases.
• If patented medicines are too expensive, developing countries must be supported to use safeguards in the TRIPS agreement to produce or import lower-priced
• The purpose of drugs is to help those people who need them but unfortunately being in a capitalist environment profits come before people's lives
• Patents are just a sign of GREED, infact the profit motive by pharmaceutical companies is UNETHICAL…people are dying

iii. CLINICAL TRIALS
• Clinical trials, even though usually the most expensive part of bringing a drug to market, most are done in developing countries and in animals;
- free
- no insurance for volunteers
- No strict policy
• Yet when drugs are developed the developing-country partners are charged alot
• Research and development is not geared towards the needs of people in poor countries.
• Drugs and diagnostic tools are being developed on the basis of their future market potential rather than on patients’ needs.
• 1% of all drugs in the last 30 yrs were developed for tropical diseases (- toxic and resistance)

iv. CONCLUSION
• Every human being has a right to access essential medicines and to live with dignity. Food and medicines constitute the basic necessities for the survival of the humanity
• The war on life-threatening diseases can be considered as much significant as the war on terrorism itself
• Poor countries should be allowed to bypass patents for concerns in relations to public health
• Developing countries as partners in development of new drugs should have access to cheap medicines as benefit for offering free participation in clinical trials.

"More than 90% of all death and suffering from infectious diseases occurs in the developing world," (James Orbinski, president MSF)

THANK YOU!

Professor Reid
In his argument which dwelt on drug search and clinical trials he said that it was an expensive process on which big pharmas spend millions of dollars. As such patents were the only way that they would be ensured of recovering these funds for further investment in new drug search. As such the big pharmas in his opinion were justified and that patents as far as his knowledge was concerned were for about ten years.

The Audience
The audience was given an opportunity also to contribute and almost all the contributions were against the big pharmas. Some of the arguments raised were; the margin of profit realised by the big pharmas, availability of alternative drug development methods like combinatorial which would reduce development costs if utilised, ethical issues surrounding profits realised by the big pharmas.

Then a vote was cast in which those in favour of the motion won after both sides were given time to summarise their arguments.

NB: Professor Reid’s arguments were summarised by the author but the student’s arguments are original as presented.