India Would Break Patents Only For Epidemics
2 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // April 3rd, 2008 // 11:37 am
At least that’s what one government official says. Compulsory licenses wouldn’t be issued unless the country faces an epidemic-like situation. And India feels that recent applications for CL may not be able to convince the government to take such an extreme step. For instance, Natco Pharma recently applied for a CL to export generic versions of two cancer drugs - Roche’s Tarceva and Pfizer’s Sutent - to Nepal.
“We are not in favour of CL unless there is an extraordinary problem. There is no point in going in for CL unless there is an epidemic which impacts a large chunk of the population, and needs immediate solution,” a senior official of the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, which oversees patent offices in India, tells The Economic Times.
But what about cancer? Would that qualify? “It may not,” this official says. In addition to Natco Pharma, Cancer Patient’s Aid Association (CPAA) with the support of Indian and global NGOs, is planning to demand CL for about 20 cancer drugs. CPPA says that the cost of patented cancer drugs are very expensive and impede access to treatment to thousands of cancer patients in the country.
Under the product patent laws in India and other countries, the government can invoke CL to enable non-patent drug makers to manufacture and sell patented drugs in national or public interest. The Indian government believes the CL provision is there to deal with extraordinary situations and safeguard national interest.
“Research-based companies invest millions of dollars and several years of research to develop new products and secure their patent. We respect genuine research and can’t infringe upon any company’s patent rights without much reason, ” the official adds. His remarks suggest government is in line with pharma.
Rapan Tay of the Organization of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Producers, which represents research-based drugmakers in India, tells the paper that “CL is a provision in the patent law which the government can use to meet the demand in unusual circumstances like epidemic for a limited period. CL should not be invoked for anything else. If it is invoked for any other reason, the whole sanctity of patent gets lost.”
Joana Ramos
One of the reasons that we are barely hearing a whimper worldwide about access to cancer drugs, despite the ever-increasing exorbitant prices for many of them ( even for the long-off-patent thalidomide) is because physician groups, CME programs, and patient groups and coalitions of patients, receive substantial funding from Big Pharma.
Within the next decade, some 70% of cancer cases are projected to occur in the developing world. While increased and genuine prevention efforts, access to timely diagnosis and treatment are urgently needed, medical advances will be meaningless if the majority of people have no access to them.
Cancer Patient
I very much agree with you on this. I am aware of many cancer groups and patients directly benefiting from the generosity of pharma - I call it hush money.
I think the overall corruption in the system is pathetic.
Not only are patient groups in cahoots, but some of the major cancer agencies are as well.
Dig out the annual reports for some of the groups that are supposedly raising money to find a cure. It’s a business like any other business. In the meantime the sick get sicker. There are rare and extraordinary cases of patients who actually are cured and walk away from it.
We must keep the pressure on countries like India, Thailand and others to protest against the high costs of these drugs. The lying has got to stop.
Patients must be willing to take drastic measures and not allow themselves to fall prey to the fear mongering. Insurance companies and governments have to start to “just say no to drugs”
It is disgusting to watch all the pocket stuffing that is going on when I meet with my doctors and attend some of the cancer conferences - a gimmick