A Case 1.2 Pharmaceutical Companies, Intellectual Property, And The Global Aids Epidemic
In-Depth Integrative Case 1.2
Pharmaceutical Companies, Intellectual Property, and the Global AIDS Epidemic
In-Depth Case 1.2
1. Do pharmaceutical companies have the responsibility to distribute drugs for a low cost in developing countries? What are the main arguments for and against such an approach? What are the advantages and the disadvantages of giving drugs for free versus offering them at low no-profit prices? The Aids epidemic is responsible for taking millions of lives worldwide, but through years of medical advances in science the possibility of extending the lives of those affected with the AIDS Virus is now possible. Sadly, in underdeveloped countries where the AIDS death rates are at its highest inefficient funds prevent citizens from obtaining these medications that could save their lives. This situation has been the cause of countless debates and conflicts over the last few decades of how pharmaceutical companies should distribute their drugs. Today most pharmaceutical companies are run as businesses that need …show more content…
This is because South Africa would be manufacturing their own generic form of the drugs, decreasing the need for the pharmaceutical companies. For years the pharmaceutical companies refused to compromise, but when South Africa made this decision and was backed by many activist groups, they had no choice but to compromise. Almost immediately they started making out of court settlements with the country. Also, they allowed the country to use some of their patents and all they asked for in return were some small royalties. I do not feel that the Pharmaceutical companies would ever allow themselves to lose a market. When pushed, I feel the pharmaceutical companies will compromise, even if they agree to make less than what they wanted. They won’t take the chance to lose the market
Pharmaceutical Companies, Intellectual Property, and the Global AIDS Epidemic
In-Depth Case 1.2
1. Do pharmaceutical companies have the responsibility to distribute drugs for a low cost in developing countries? What are the main arguments for and against such an approach? What are the advantages and the disadvantages of giving drugs for free versus offering them at low no-profit prices? The Aids epidemic is responsible for taking millions of lives worldwide, but through years of medical advances in science the possibility of extending the lives of those affected with the AIDS Virus is now possible. Sadly, in underdeveloped countries where the AIDS death rates are at its highest inefficient funds prevent citizens from obtaining these medications that could save their lives. This situation has been the cause of countless debates and conflicts over the last few decades of how pharmaceutical companies should distribute their drugs. Today most pharmaceutical companies are run as businesses that need …show more content…
This is because South Africa would be manufacturing their own generic form of the drugs, decreasing the need for the pharmaceutical companies. For years the pharmaceutical companies refused to compromise, but when South Africa made this decision and was backed by many activist groups, they had no choice but to compromise. Almost immediately they started making out of court settlements with the country. Also, they allowed the country to use some of their patents and all they asked for in return were some small royalties. I do not feel that the Pharmaceutical companies would ever allow themselves to lose a market. When pushed, I feel the pharmaceutical companies will compromise, even if they agree to make less than what they wanted. They won’t take the chance to lose the market