Global Health Responsibility and Irresponsiblity

Pharmaceutical companies are businesses. With this fact in mind it is fair to admit that they are entities that must maintain a bottom line and a level of profitability to continue providing the services they make possible. Following this logic one can understand the argument that is raised in their defense when the question of how their patents and the way they exploit them restrict access to medicine in poor countries is brought up. “Not all intellectual property rights grant the right to exclude. Some intellectual property rights are “liability rules,” in which the right holder has an entitlement to compensation for use of the protected invention, not a right to preclude the use.”[1]

In his paper, Sean Flynn explains how patent laws normally give owners the right to keep other parties from using a proprietary invention. However, he also points out how many if not most countries’ regulations stipulate that their governments hold the right to change patent property rules into liability rules through what is called a compulsory license. He borrows from Robert Nozick’s argument in defense of the idea that when any one thing is needed for the sake of survival it ought to be redistributed when it is held exclusively in supply by one party. So, it is safe to assume that although he does believe property should be held and defended, as it is by patents for the sake of pharmaceuticals, if it is acquired justly, Nozick would concur that the manner in which pharmaceuticals exploit their patent rights to restrict access to essential drugs to those in the developed world has indeed left them worse off. This enforces their right to the opportunity not to be worse of then the general standard and leaves pharmaceuticals the duty to facilitate that.

So the question remains, if as a society we’ve accepted these premises, why is it still possible for Big Pharma companies to use their economic standing as a basis to continuously infringe these rights? This is not to say that business has remained absent or blind towards human rights issues. Over the past few years the concept of corporate social responsibility has moved us immensely towards progress. Today, many firms recognize that maximized and sustained shareholder value is inextricably linked to the scope of access to health and its distribution or lack thereof around the world. This is why, in an age where the problem of medicine and access to it is more pressing then ever, we must keep on urging those involved to approach the issue not so much as a debate over property but about the very right to health that so many people need help securing.

References:

1. [1] Flynn, Sean, Aidan Hollis, and Mike Palmedo. "An Economic Justification for Open Access to Essential Medicine Patents in Developing Countries."The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37.2 (2009): 184-208. Blackboard. Web. 1 May 2015.