Introduction
The main aspect that needs to be considered in this case is whether the company has a patent for this vaccine and is licensed by the government of UK to distribute the vaccines to public. It is assumed that this company does possess the necessary patent protection and licence to supply these kinds of vaccines, in which case, it would be difficult to force legal proceedings by UK Government against them.
The idea behind patents
The fundamental idea behind Patents is that they offer protection on the usage and working of certain products or ideas. For instance, a patent protected product cannot be copied or used by other parties. This offers a kind of benefit for its original inventors. For instance, if Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) has exclusive monopoly, or patent over a drug they could prevent others from making generic use of these drugs and selling them in the marketplace for profits.
Under UK laws, “A patent gives you the right to stop others from copying, manufacturing, selling, and importing your invention without your permission.” (Benefits of patent protection, 2009, para.1).
Company has invested heavily on this Vaccine
It could be argued that this company, MITIM has invested heavily in the development of this drug vaccine, and would therefore need to recoup the huge Research and Development (R&D) costs that have been invested towards this vaccine project. “GSK said it had invested over £1.5bn in its development dating back to 1991.” (Russell, 2009, para.6).
It is quite natural for a company of the size of MITIM to invest heavily in vaccines, especially since this is a competitive market and there are many players who are in the fray for producing and marketing vaccines against H1N1, especially since it has assumed pandemic proportions. Also considering the fact that quite a few billion pounds have been invested towards development and testing of these vaccines, it would also be necessary for the management of MITIM to convince its shareholders about the need and cost benefits of these fundings; again, in the event the shareholders do not accede to increased costs for developing the vaccines, it would become inevitable for the Company to withdraw from the market, at least temporarily, in order to avoid conflict situations with rival manufacturers and competitors of drug vaccines.
Company is responsible to Board of Directors and shareholders
Moreover, the company is also answerable to its Board of Directors and particularly to its shareholders who may demand returns for R&D investments. In the event this vaccine is shared with other rival companies, its prices may reduce and the company may not be able to maintain the profit margins that they were able to do without sharing the vaccine technology. Given these surroundings, the Company may not be like to share its patented vaccine technology with rival companies for competitive reasons. Sharing vaccines technology would mean an eventual reduction in their pricing, and this could not only reduce their bottom line but also impact upon profits and dividend payouts to shareholders, which this company wishes to avoid under all circumstances. This could explain the tough stance taken by the company fearing that it may be reproduced or otherwise sold without due compensation for its rights under licence.
It is sometimes and rightly believed that the vaccines are more dangerous than the disease itself. Detractors are quick to point out that vaccine businessmen do make a lot of money by being awarded hefty Government contracts. But the ethical reasons behind mass vaccinations are now being questioned, especially the belief that these vaccines do more harm than good and are potentially “dangerous.” (Ho & Cummins, 2009, para.13).
Thus considering the negative aspects of these vaccines it is necessary that country specific trials and experiments need to be done on humans before it could be declared safe and without detriment to humans, especially the endangered categories of people like elderly people, children below 5 years of age, people having cancer, AIDS, lung ailments or equally debilitating diseases.
Suitable options to be taken by Government against this Company
- The first would be to work out a compromise formulae that could be acceptable to both parties. It could be in terms of government buying bulk vaccines from MITIM at a predetermined fixed price and taking up the responsibility of distributing the vaccines to the needed population or through government approved channels
- The second option would be for the know-how and technology to be made known to the government, or government approved parties, who would take up the manufacture and distribution of these vaccines on a nation wide basis. Of course, the company need to be duly compensated in terms of their monetary efforts made in developing and testing the vaccine and making it safe and reliable for human injection. The government and its approved institutions need to take up monitoring and control mechanism of vaccines, on a large scale basis.
Of the above it is seen that the former number 1 option is better since it could relieve the botheration of the government in long drawn manufacturing and production processes and it could be left to concentrate on more critical aspects of vaccine distribution and ensuring the health and safety aspects of providing these shots to the public. It is believed that receiving these shots should not be made compulsory, but the fact remains that the best health protection against the outbreak of virulent swine flu would need to be emphasised. While people cannot be made to be forcibly inoculated, only vaccinated children could be admitted into “school”. (Colthart, 2009, p.4).
Conclusion
While it would be sometimes difficult for large companies to detract from their established rules, regulations and procedures regarding vaccines, it is necessary to make concession in the larger public health interests, and the need to arrest the spread of this deadly virus, H1N1.
Reference List
Benefits of patent protection. (2009). Intellectual Property Office. Web.
Colthart, G. (2009). Swine flue vaccination: Powers to impose compulsory vaccination. House of Commons, Library. Web.
Ho, M.W. & Cummins, J. (2009). The vaccines are far more deadly than swine the flu: WHO and mass vaccination fever. Global Research.ca: Centre for Research on Globalization. Web.
Russell, J. (2009). Glaxo to have swine flu vaccine by September. Telegraph.co.uk. Web.