Global intellectual property protection for innovative pharmaceuticals: Challenges for bioethics and health law
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Multilateral and bilateral trade agreements have become important vehicles by which US multinational corporations, through close collaboration with government officials, are striving, amongst other objectives, for increasingly stringent global intellectual property protection (GIPP), particularly over what they term “innovative” pharmaceuticals. This chapter explores the evolution and structural dynamics of GIPP. It particularly considers the hypothesis that GIPP represents a corporate-driven ideology whose legitimacy in a democratic polity is undermined by its uncertain foundation in public health research and inadequate integration with norms of bioethics and health law, including international human rights. This detailed analysis begins with consideration of the domestic evolution of GIPP from within the US patent system. This may reveal how many of its important structural features had their roots in a domestic profit-making ideology. The chapter then examines the critical initial globalization role of the US Trade Act 1974, particularly section 301. This permitted US industry to request an investigation by the US International Trade Commission of foreign nations whose practices allegedly caused it material injury. The Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is analyzed as a mature component of GIPP by which increased intellectual property rights [intellectual monopoly privileges] in particular over pharmaceuticals, were linked with strong trade sanctions. The sophisticated contribution to GIPP made by the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act 2003 (US) is then evaluated, particularly its prohibition of Federal Government medicine price setting and its requirement for a study of pharmaceutical price controls in other developed countries. In each case the extent to which GIPP attempted or failed to integrate its corporate-designed principles with basic norms of bioethics, public health law and international human rights is discussed.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jillian Clare Cohen & Patricia Illingworth (2003). The Dilemma of Intellectual Property Rights for Pharmaceuticals: The Tension Between Ensuring Access of the Poor to Medicines and Committing to International Agreements. Developing World Bioethics 3 (1):27–48.
Hugh Breakey (2010). Natural Intellectual Property Rights and the Public Domain. Modern Law Review 73 (2):208-239.
Theodoros Papaioannou (2006). Towards a Critique of the Moral Foundations of Intellectual Property Rights. Journal of Global Ethics 2 (1):67 – 90.
Simon Butt & Timothy Lindsey, Trips, Intellectual Property Law Reform in Indonesia: Why Injunctions Aren't Stopping Piracy.
Nevin M. Gewertz & Rivka Amado (2004). Intellectual Property and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Moral Crossroads Between Health and Property. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 55 (3):295 - 308.
Rivka Amado & Nevin M. Gewertz (2004). Intellectual Property and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Moral Crossroads Between Health and Property. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 55 (3):295 - 308.
Meri Koivusalo (2010). Common Health Policy Interests and the Shaping of Global Pharmaceutical Policies. Ethics and International Affairs 24 (4):395-414.
Added to index2009-05-28
Total downloads5 ( #482,295 of 1,789,926 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?