From: <b class="gmail_sendername">shila kaur</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kaur_shila@yahoo.com" target="_blank">kaur_shila@yahoo.com</a>></span> Health Action International Asia Pacific (HAIAP)<br><div dir="ltr">
</div> <div class="gmail_quote">
<div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><div></div><br><div style="font-family:'times new roman','new york',times,serif;font-size:12pt">Courtesy of TWN Info service. Article written by K.M. Gopakumar of PHM. <div>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><div>
<div>
<div>Third
World Network<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.twn.my/" target="_blank"> www.twn.my</a><br> <br><b>Access to medicines
resolution adopted excerpts<br></b> <br>New Delhi, 15 Jul (K. M. Gopakumar) -- The United
Nations Human Rights Council has adopted a resolution on access to medicines
despite opposition from the United States and the European
Union.<br> <br>This was at the 23rd session of the Council held in Geneva
on 27 May-14 June 2013. The resolution was sponsored by developing countries as
a follow-up to the Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone
to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental
health, Anand Grover, on access to medicines.<br> <br>Out of 47 members
of the Human Rights Council, 31 voted for the resolution while 16 abstained from
voting.<br> <br>[The following countries voted in favour of the resolution:
Angola, Argentina, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, Congo, Costa
Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, India, Indonesia,
Kenya, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, the Maldives, Mauritania, Pakistan, Peru, the
Philippines, Qatar, Sierra Leone, Thailand, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, and
Venezuela].<br> <br>[The following countries abstained from voting: Austria,
Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Montenegro,
Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, and
the United States of America.]<br> <br>According to a developing country
delegate, the EU and the US led the abstention. It was learnt that the US
proposed nearly five amendments to the resolution with the objective of limiting
the scope of the resolution to essential medicines and also to dilute the
wording on local manufacturing.<br> <br>Disagreement during the informal
negotiations led to the decision of the US, the EU, Japan, Republic of Korea,
Switzerland and Kazakhstan to abstain from voting.<br> <br>Another
developing country delegate termed the EU's abstention decision as
"backstabbing" because the EU had proposed a series of amendments during the
informal negotiations and consensus was reached on many issues raised by the EU.
However, the EU decided to back-track from the consensus and joined with the US
decision to abstain from voting.<br> <br>According to an observer, the US might have
purposefully proposed the textual changes at the last minute to avoid consensus
on a resolution containing language to develop a policy framework on local
production of medicines.<br> <br>It was also learnt that the EU, apart from suggesting
more than 25 textual amendments to the first version of the June 2013
resolution, also raised three broad comments, which indirectly questioned the
very idea of the resolution.<br> <br>It was learnt that
even though some of the EU amendment proposals were limited to language edit
without altering the substance of the resolution, many proposals for amendments
were also aimed at diluting/limiting the content of the resolution.<br> <br> <br>According to an
observer, the resolution is a step forward in addressing the issue of access to
medicines within the right to health framework.<br> <br>This is the first
time a comprehensive resolution covering most of the determinants of access to
medicines within the human rights framework is articulated in a stronger
language than the earlier Human Right Council Resolution 17/14 of
2011.<br> <br>The Resolution 17/14 used the word "encourages States" and
listed down 11 measures. This resolution is stronger than "urging". Further, the
resolution recognizes access to medicines as one of the fundamental elements in
the realization of the right to health in OP 2.<br> <br>Secondly, unlike
some earlier resolutions, the scope of the June 2013 resolution is not limited
to essential medicines and covers all medicines.<br> <br>Thirdly, the
resolution clearly addresses the issue of prices of medicines and urges States
in the regulation of prices in OP 5(c), "To adopt regulation measures with a
view to providing access of the population, and particularly individuals in
vulnerable situations, to affordable medicines". This clearly means the
regulation of prices of medicines to make them affordable for people. This is
important in the context of developing countries where people incur
out-of-pocket expenditure to buy medicines.<br> <br>Fourthly, the
resolution through OP 5(b) and OP 5(m), clearly establishes the link between
local production and the right to health framework.<br> <br>Fifthly, OP
5(n) of the resolution also addresses the research and development question
within the right to health framework, especially referring to a new R&D
model based on de-linking of cost of R&D from the price of health
products.<br> <br>Sixthly, the resolution also establishes the link between
access to medicines and universal health coverage in OP 5(p).<br> <br>Seventhly,
unlike the earlier resolution, this one reflects the conflict of interest issue
while referring to engagement with stakeholders. OP 5(e) and OP 8 clearly state
that the engagement with stakeholders is based on the principle of safeguarding
public health from undue influence by any form of real, perceived or potential
conflict of interest.<br> <br>Another observer points out some of the
shortcomings of the resolution.<br> <br>First, the OP 5(a) language does
not convey the message clearly because it urges States to develop a national
framework to ensure access to "medicines that are affordable, safe, efficacious
and of quality".<br> <br>According to the observer, even though the
intention is clear, it conveys a meaning that the framework should ensure access
to only those medicines that are affordable, safe, efficacious and of quality.
In other words, it conveys a meaning that the framework need not address the
medicines which are not affordable but safe, efficacious and of
quality.<br> <br>Secondly, OP 5(h) dealing with the use of TRIPS
flexibilities also states that the protection of intellectual property is
important for the development of new medicines. This is a highly contested
assertion. There is enough evidence to show that the current IP framework,
especially patent protection, is not a necessity to develop new medicines,
especially to develop medicines to meet the needs of developing
countries.<br> <br>Thirdly, OP 5(j) on IP enforcement conveys a meaning
that restrains the application of IP enforcement only if the measures and
procedures create a barrier to the legitimate trade of affordable, safe,
efficacious and quality medicines. In other words, the resolution does not apply
in the context when the medicine is not affordable.<br> <br>Fourthly, OP 9 urging states and international organizations
to promote innovative research and development to address health needs in
developing countries omitted the de-linkage of the costs of research and
development from the price of health products, mentioned in OP
5(n).<br> <br>Fifthly, the resolution does not contain any mention of
curbing the unethical promotion of medicines. The Report of the Special
Rapporteur identified it as one of the important issues affecting access to
medicines. The Report recommended to "Prohibit unethical commercial marketing
and promotion of medicines by pharmaceutical companies through legal
accountability measures based on strict penalties and cancellation of
manufacturing licenses."<br> <br>Similarly, the resolution is also silent
on the transparency of clinical trial data. The Special Rapporteur's Report
recommended to "Ensure transparency of data related to quality, safety and
efficacy of medicines, including the mandatory publication of adverse data."
+ </div></div></div><br><br></div> </div><div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"> </div> </div></div></div></div><br>