Danh mục

báo cáo khoa học: Balancing intellectual monopoly privileges and the need for essential medicines

Số trang: 5      Loại file: pdf      Dung lượng: 197.01 KB      Lượt xem: 5      Lượt tải: 0    
Thư viện của tui

Hỗ trợ phí lưu trữ khi tải xuống: miễn phí Tải xuống file đầy đủ (5 trang) 0
Xem trước 2 trang đầu tiên của tài liệu này:

Thông tin tài liệu:

Tuyển tập báo cáo các nghiên cứu khoa học quốc tế ngành y học dành cho các bạn tham khảo đề tài: Balancing intellectual monopoly privileges and the need for essential medicines
Nội dung trích xuất từ tài liệu:
báo cáo khoa học: " Balancing intellectual monopoly privileges and the need for essential medicines"Globalization and Health BioMed Central Open AccessEditorialBalancing intellectual monopoly privileges and the need foressential medicinesGreg Martin*1, Corinna Sorenson2 and Thomas Faunce3Address: 1Science and Research Department, World Cancer Research Fund, 19 Harley Street, London, W1G 9QJ, UK, 2London School ofEconomics, LSE Health, Cowdray House, Houghton Street London, WC2A 2AE, UK and 3College of Law, Medical School, Globalization andHealth Project – Centre for Governance of Knowledge and Development, Australian National University, AustraliaEmail: Greg Martin* - g.martin@wcrf.org; Corinna Sorenson - C.Sorenson@lse.ac.uk; Thomas Faunce - Fauncet@law.anu.edu.au* Corresponding authorPublished: 12 June 2007 Received: 30 May 2007 Accepted: 12 June 2007Globalization and Health 2007, 3:4 doi:10.1186/1744-8603-3-4This article is available from: http://www.globalizationandhealth.com/content/3/1/4© 2007 Martin et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0),which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract This issue of Globalization and Health presents a paper by Kerry and Lee that considers the TRIPS agreement and the recent policy debate regarding the protection of public health interest, particularly as they pertain to the Doha Declaration. In this editorial, we consider the debate, the conclusions thereof, and identify five questions that should be considered by key stakeholders in ongoing discussions. Despite recent advancements in prevention and treatmentBackgroundThe World Trade Organisations (WTOs) agreement on in many regions of the world, diseases such as HIV/AIDS,Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights tuberculosis (TB) and malaria continue to scourge the(TRIPS) has remained controversial ever since its incep- poorest and most vulnerable of the global population.tion at the behest of some of the worlds largest multina- The vast majority of those suffering from these diseasestional corporations. Balancing the need to protect the live in developing countries, where low wages, high phar-intellectual property rights (IPRs) (which the third author maceutical prices and poor access to medical servicesconsiders are more accurately described as intellectual means there is limited, if any, access to many of the life-monopoly privileges (IMPs)) of pharmaceutical compa- saving drugs currently available in industrialised coun-nies, with the need to ensure access to essential medicines tries. In fact, about one-third of the worlds populationin developing countries is one of the most pressing chal- does not have access to essential medicines. Currently, 80lenges facing international policy makers today. In order percent of the worlds population lives in developingfor Commonwealth nations to craft and implement IPR countries, but consumes less than 20 percent of all phar-(or IMP) legislation that realises this balance, decision- maceuticals.makers need to capitalise on the flexibilities and provi-sions afforded by the agreement, particularly compulsory The problem of access to essential medications for thelicensing. Nonetheless, the industry-influenced US Trade developing world is two-fold. First, research and develop-Representative (USTR) routinely opposes the use of such ment (R&D) is principally being driven by market forces,flexibilities and, despite contrary injunctions in US law, not medical need, when considered in light of estimates ofhas sought to restrict them in a series of bilateral puta- the global burden of disease. Specifically, problems typi-tively free trade agreements. ...

Tài liệu được xem nhiều:

Tài liệu liên quan: