Treating Aids: A Global Ethical DilemmaEssay Preview: Treating Aids: A Global Ethical DilemmaReport this essayKey Issue:The vast majority of the people infected with HIV and has AIDS do not live in developed countries and do not have an access to therapies. Local governments cannot afford vast reimbursements of health care products and that dispense the citizens of the lifesaving “cocktails”. The issue is complicated by the fact that developing countries have poor infrastructure, poor health care systems and poverty that prevent the distribution of anti-AIDS drugs. The international community is facing a dilemma – How to balance the problem of drug accessibility in the developing world with the need to promote and fund research and development of new drugs in the developed world? Is the cost factor the only issue related to access to medicines?
Analysis:As of January 2006, UNAIDS and the World Health Organization (WHO) estimate that AIDS has killed more than 25 million people since it was first recognized on December 1, 1981, making it one of the most destructive pandemics in recorded history. In 2005 alone, AIDS claimed between an estimated 2.8 and 3.6 million, of which more than 570,000 were children. (
Drug accessibility for the poor nations has become a vast economic and political issue. The UN, WHO and numerous health care organizations from all over the world, are putting pressure of pharmaceutical companies to reduce pricing on the anti-AIDS drugs. Meanwhile, in order to gain access to medical treatment, governments are importing inexpensive generic drugs and give the right to manufacture drugs domestically, without enforcement of patent requirements.
Many pharmaceutical giants like Glaxo-Smith Kline, Pfizer INC, Merck and Co. make concessions in the form of drastic price reductions, as well as dismissing numerous lawsuits related to patent protections of their products. The companies not only agree to reduce prices for African countries, but comply to offer the drugs at cost without any expectation of profit. Also, an important concession has been undertaken within the WTO – the Doha declaration of 2001, that “give the poor nations the right to protect public health and to promote the access to medicines for all” and that “the TRIPS (Trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights) agreement does not and should not prevent members from taking measures to protect public health.” A balance between the patent protection laws and access to medication for developing countries has been reached.
Despite all the measures administered but the UN and the WTO and the price reductions undertaken by the pharmaceutical companies, African countries continue to buy discounted drugs from small generic companies, whose medications not only are insufficient with the demand but also are subject of quality concerns. Many of them fail to receive a certification. They are often unregulated, offering poor safety standards.
The impact of the African price reductions leads to an international issue. As a result of the discount offered in the developing countries, many of the pharmaceutical companies expose themselves to criticism because of the high pricing of their products in the developed markets. The issue of the differential pricing begins to rise. The pharmaceutical companies state that without such differential pricing they will not be able to continue investing in patented drugs, research and development of new drugs and cure for AIDS. According to studies the cost of developing a new pharmaceutical product is estimated at $600-$800 million. The ability to recoup research and development becomes even more critical considering that competition usually will occur within one year of two. (Robert Pier, Research Cost for New Pharmaceutical Drug Said to Soar, NY Times, Dec.1, 2001)
The Globalization of Pharmaceutical Supply (2009, 2)
The recent rise of health in the developing world has led to shortages of medical supplies and inefficiency. Currently, a global average of more than 50,000 patients are referred annually to their doctor for treatment. A global health impact of about 100 million to 130 million deaths occurs every year.
To date, no global health intervention has been devised to alleviate such a high demand. Most international health programs have failed to address the problem. Many developed countries’ major economies like the USA, Germany, Australia, Canada, France, UK, and Germany lack effective and effective global public health intervention. They have not created a system that can address the problem, or more precisely, what is needed to address it.
Worldwide, the number of health-care workers in each country has increased over the last 40 years. That change is driven by a demand for health care. Today, there are about 1.3 billion people in the world. Nearly half of them are adults, as well as children. The average number of live patients worldwide does not equal the global population. And even those living in countries that have not yet begun to respond to the need for health care can benefit from a higher level of quality preventive, public, and emergency medicine services.
For example, as of 2010, in France, 80% of children and adolescents at risk of developing diabetes develop CVD or coronary heart disease over the course of their lifetimes, despite the fact that the age at which they reach puberty is almost three years (20 years between ages four through 14). This translates to less than 1 per cent of kids growing up in countries that have not yet completed most of their school years. This includes countries with large population bases, such as Australia, which have been doing poorly in recent years.
Because of this, we need an international mechanism to address the question, “why have global health efforts been so limited in trying to address the challenges of poverty and health problems such as AIDS and other diseases.” Although the International Monetary Fund is currently involved in the development of more than 15,000 programs to deal with these problems, the international approach to health has led to a lack of action, too numerous and too wide ranging. The U.N.’s Global Fund for Diseases and Development for example spends less than 3 per cent of its budget per year on the development of drugs for AIDS.
More than 5,000 private and public health agencies work daily to address hunger and disease in developing countries (WHO, 2005). Most of those agencies are funded by the public and local governments, with the UNFPA being the second most well-funded organisation in terms of funding, with almost 4 per cent. (This is slightly down from 2005 and slightly ahead of the United Nations and some other national governments when the WHO funding comes in at less than 1 per cent on the budget for HIV/AIDS). Many of these agencies work day-to-day, while many are independent as well. Although these agencies are funded by the local authorities as well, they still spend more for each UNFPA year than they otherwise would, for a global approach, including the implementation of much needed interventions for poor communities, as well as targeted programmes to address hunger and disease.
The World Health Organization is an independent international body that organises multilateral actions to address the common challenges in achieving a global health approach.
The United States, for example, is a member of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the
These events are primary related to the cost factor in accessing medical treatment. But reducing the price of anti – AIDS drugs is not the solution