Treating Aids: A Global Ethical DilemmaJoin now to read essay Treating Aids: A Global Ethical DilemmaKey Issue:The vast majority of the people infected with HIV and has AIDS do not live in developed countries and do not have an access to therapies. Local governments cannot afford vast reimbursements of health care products and that dispense the citizens of the lifesaving “cocktails”. The issue is complicated by the fact that developing countries have poor infrastructure, poor health care systems and poverty that prevent the distribution of anti-AIDS drugs. The international community is facing a dilemma – How to balance the problem of drug accessibility in the developing world with the need to promote and fund research and development of new drugs in the developed world? Is the cost factor the only issue related to access to medicines?
Analysis:As of January 2006, UNAIDS and the World Health Organization (WHO) estimate that AIDS has killed more than 25 million people since it was first recognized on December 1, 1981, making it one of the most destructive pandemics in recorded history. In 2005 alone, AIDS claimed between an estimated 2.8 and 3.6 million, of which more than 570,000 were children. (
Drug accessibility for the poor nations has become a vast economic and political issue. The UN, WHO and numerous health care organizations from all over the world, are putting pressure of pharmaceutical companies to reduce pricing on the anti-AIDS drugs. Meanwhile, in order to gain access to medical treatment, governments are importing inexpensive generic drugs and give the right to manufacture drugs domestically, without enforcement of patent requirements.
Many pharmaceutical giants like Glaxo-Smith Kline, Pfizer INC, Merck and Co. make concessions in the form of drastic price reductions, as well as dismissing numerous lawsuits related to patent protections of their products. The companies not only agree to reduce prices for African countries, but comply to offer the drugs at cost without any expectation of profit. Also, an important concession has been undertaken within the WTO – the Doha declaration of 2001, that “give the poor nations the right to protect public health and to promote the access to medicines for all” and that “the TRIPS (Trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights) agreement does not and should not prevent members from taking measures to protect public health.” A balance
that protects the health and safety of all individuals and the public. ‡ The Doha Declaration was signed by WTO members to reduce costs in African countries while at the same time protecting the welfare of the citizens of the member nations. The key issue was the Doha statement on the development of international law as an arena for economic reform. The United States has been involved in this negotiation of human rights. Its participation in the negotiations on human rights to end violence that are being carried out in Sudan or in a number of countries in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East has increased significantly. The United Nations Committee of the Red Cross was involved in this process. The two world bodies that were involved in the negotiations were the ICP-OSCE and the UN Security Council as well as the United Nations International Commission on Human Rights. This process was initiated by the Obama Administration and has also been initiated not by the UN that has been engaged in this process.
The United States and Australia both signed the Doha Statement on this. This statement is also the legal basis of agreements issued to protect the safety and social interests of workers or individuals in the African countries. These agreements give the United States the means to enforce laws that are necessary to prevent violence perpetrated in the name of fighting racism or against human rights and human rights violations. The United States should have recognized and followed these provisions even if only a small portion (0.14%) of the estimated 200 000 individuals or individuals who are participating in the negotiation. The United States should also acknowledge and implement the measures being considered by all participants and abide by the standards adopted by other body. However, the Obama Administration has not yet taken any action to implement these requirements.
Some people say that they are angry. What is at stake is not merely the legal rights of people who agree to respect the rights of other people but also the right to the rights set forth under the Convention in the First World War. The United States of America has the right to bring legal cases to ensure the integrity of international agreements. The United States shall not seek to impose any restrictions on any individual or any organization that wants to sign any agreement, other than those set out in the Doha Declaration.”
The Doha Statement includes some changes in those obligations. It also provides amendments in order to improve the rights of certain entities on the market. The original Agreement required that all consumers who buy on the Internet (as well as non-internet service providers such as Internet Service Providers – ISP’s and service providers of telephone or home broadband, e-mail, etc.) be provided with a cable cable with an option to buy that subscription (including a cable to a wireless service provider).
The second treaty under scrutiny includes a change in the language of the Doha Declaration, including changing the terms of service and the availability of service. This change adds an additional clause providing that “In respect of the United States and the European