David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Bioethics 23 (7):413-420 (2009)
Infectious and parasitic diseases cause enormous health problems in the developing world whereas they leave the developed one relatively unscathed. Research and development (R&D) of drugs for diseases that mainly affect people in developing countries is limited. The problem that relatively few drugs are available for diseases that cause an enormous burden of disease in the developing world is called the 'availability problem'. In recent years, the availability problem has received quite a bit of attention. A number of proposals have been fielded as to how this problem might be minimized. Wild-card patent extensions, advance market commitments, cash prizes and the Health Impact Fund are prominent examples of such proposals. These proposals can be thought of as pull-mechanisms for R&D of drugs for neglected diseases. What has been coined a 'priority review voucher' is another pull-mechanism. This paper is a critical discussion of this pull-mechanism. First, the original priority review voucher scheme, as proposed by Ridley et al. (2006), is described. A number of objections to this scheme are thereafter presented. A few amendments to the original scheme are then suggested, and it is argued that with these amendments in place, the priority review voucher scheme constitutes an attractive way of stimulating R&D of drugs for neglected diseases.
|Keywords||priority review voucher drugs for neglected diseases availability problem|
|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
M. Peterson, A. Hollis & T. Pogge (2010). A Critique in Need of Critique. Public Health Ethics 3 (2):178-185.
Similar books and articles
Roger S. Magnusson (2010). Global Health Governance and the Challenge of Chronic, Non-Communicable Disease. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 38 (3):490-507.
Aidan Hollis (2008). The Health Impact Fund: A Useful Supplement to the Patent System? Public Health Ethics 1 (2):124-133.
Rebecca L. Walker & Nancy M. P. King (2011). Biodefense Research and the U.S. Regulatory Structure Whither Nonhuman Primate Moral Standing? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 21 (3):277-310.
Sabina Gainotti, Nicola Moran, Carlo Petrini & Darren Shickle (2008). Ethical Models Underpinning Responses to Threats to Public Health: A Comparison of Approaches to Communicable Disease Control in Europe. Bioethics 22 (9):466-476.
Frank R. Lichtenberg (2005). Pharmaceutical Innovation and the Burden of Disease in Developing and Developed Countries. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (6):663 – 690.
Nicole Hassoun (2012). Global Health Impact: A Basis for Labeling and Licensing Campaigns? Developing World Bioethics 12 (3):121-134.
Kayhan Parsi, Dhrubajyoti Bhattacharya & Justin List (2011). The Dread Disease: Cancer in the Developing World. Hastings Center Report 41 (3):13-14.
Michael Ravvin (2008). Incentivizing Access and Innovation for Essential Medicines: A Survey of the Problem and Proposed Solutions. Public Health Ethics 1 (2):110-123.
J. Sonderholm (2010). A Reform Proposal in Need of Reform: A Critique of Thomas Pogge's Proposal for How to Incentivize Research and Development of Essential Drugs. Public Health Ethics 3 (2):167-177.
J. Sonderholm (2011). Advance Monopoly Commitment? Public Health Ethics 4 (3):297-302.
Added to index2009-07-30
Total downloads17 ( #227,383 of 1,934,424 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #434,207 of 1,934,424 )
How can I increase my downloads?