Introduction
The movie “Fire in the Blood” depicts a sad tale of how multinational pharmaceutical companies and Western governments collaborated in blocking poor countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia from gaining access to life-saving AIDS drugs due to the employment of a greatly monopolized profits-first approach in the sale of the drugs. Although the justification for this approach was nested on the patent system or intellectual property (IP) protections, it caused a lot of suffering and unnecessary deaths of millions of people who could not access the life-saving drugs.
Main body
Such a situation, in my view, could have been avoided by ensuring that governments contribute to a global health fund that could be used to pay or reward drug companies for their innovation instead of allowing them to recoup their investments through the use of the patenting system. From the movie, it is clear that patents and IP protections provided an enabling environment for monopolies to exist in the drug market, which in turn allowed drug companies to set very high prices in line with the principles of a market failure. A global health fund will ensure that the pharmaceutical companies are effectively compensated for their time and effort in producing the drugs before patents can be shared with generic drug manufacturers to enhance cost efficiencies. This way, the IP system will be safeguarded and pharmaceutical companies will be motivated to innovate more to benefit from the reward pool. On the other hand, generic drug manufacturing companies will be able to use the knowledge and expertise of the patent holders to manufacture cheap life-saving drugs, hence ensuring that drugs are easily accessible to millions of people who need them. This approach is ethical in nature as it provides access to life-saving drugs while ensuring that pharmaceutical companies are able to achieve their profit objectives.
Colleagues’ Postings
The student’s posting raises pertinent questions on ethics and law by arguing that pharmaceutical companies should neither be allowed to benefit unethically due to patent laws nor continue to put millions of lives at risk due to their profit-oriented objectives. Although the student’s concerns are valid, it may be difficult to implement laws and regulations that oblige pharmaceutical companies to make the life-saving drugs affordable to millions of people who require them as such a move is bound to compromise the free market dynamics. According to Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), it is possible to increase access to life-saving drugs by supporting revolutionary research and development (R&D) practices. It is evident that multinational pharmaceutical companies charge exorbitant prices to recoup the high costs associated with research and development from the end consumers. As such, it would be plausible for governments and other stakeholders to come up with strategies that could be used to enable drug companies to cover their research and production costs so that the benefits are passed down to consumers in terms of sustainable drug prices. While activism and laws can be used to push pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices as suggested by the student, it is necessary to employ alternatives that will lead to competition in the marketplace.
Conclusion
The UAEM’s alternative of supporting revolutionary R&D practices will definitely lead to competition as it empowers individuals and green companies to develop effective medicines at greatly discounted costs. Multinational pharmaceutical companies will be forced to lower their prices of life-saving drugs when it becomes clear to them that they no longer have the capacity to monopolize the market.