Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can drug patents be morally justified?

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper offers a few elements of an answer to the question to what extent drug patents can be morally justified. Justifications based on natural rights, distributive justice and utilitarian arguments are discussed and criticized. The author recognizes the potential of the patents to benefit society but argues that the system is currently evolving in the wrong direction, particularly in the field of drugs. More than a third of the world’s population has no access to essential drugs. The working of the patent system is an important determinant of access to drugs. This paper argues that drug patents are not easily justified and that the ‘architecture’ of the patent system should be rethought in view of its mission of benefiting society.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. GATT Scretariat ed. (1994) Annex 1C: Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, in: The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. The Legal Texts. WTO, Geneva: 365–403. Also available at: docsonline.wto.org/DDFDocuments/UR/FA/27-trips.doc

  2. Samuelson, P. (1989) Innovation and Competition: Conflicts over Intellectual Property Rights in New Technologies, in: Weil, V. & Snapper, J. eds., Owning Scientific and Technical Information — Value and Ethical Issues. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick: 179.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Drahos, P. (1996) A Philosophy of Intellectual Property. Dartmouth, Aldershot: 211.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See e.g. Grubb, P. (1999) Patents for Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology. Clarendon, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  5. See art. 28 TRIPs.

  6. See art. 27(1) TRIPs: “... patents [can] be granted for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology ... [and] patent rights are enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and whether products are imported or locally produced”. (emphasis added)

  7. The outcome of the WTO Ministerial Meeting in Doha (Qatar) in November 2001. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2, 20 November 2001.

  8. Which he formulated in his Second Treatise on Government (1690). See Laslett, P. ed. (1988). Locke, Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 285–302.

    Google Scholar 

  9. The famous libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick, who has formulated a theory of property that is partly based on Locke’s theory, has raised the following pertinent question: why isn’t mixing what I own with what I don’t own a way of losing what I own rather than a way of gaining what I don’t? He gives the example of spilling a can of tomato juice in the sea: “If I own a can of tomato juice and spill it in the sea so that its molecules (made radioactive, so I can check this) mingle evenly throughout the sea, do I thereby come to own the sea, or have I foolishly dissipated my tomato juice?” Nozick, R. (1974) Anarchy, State and Utopia. Blackwell, Oxford: 175.

    Google Scholar 

  10. See e.g. Lomasky, L. (1987) Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Also see Rothbard, M. (1982) The Ethics of Liberty. Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  11. See Dutton, H. (1984) The patent system and inventive activity during the industrial revolution, 1750–1852. Manchester University Press, Manchester: 18. Also see MacLeod, C. (1988) Inventing the industrial revolution. The English patent system, 1660–1800. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 197, 199.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Penrose, E. (1951) The Economics of the International Patent System. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore: 24–25.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See http://www.nihcm.org/innovations.pdf.

  14. National Institutes of Health (2000) NIH Contributions to Pharmaceutical Development (administrative document), cited in: Public Citizen (2002) America’s Other Drug Problem: A Briefing Book on the Rx Drug Debate. Public Citizen, Washington, DC: 51.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Brock, D. (2001) Some questions about the moral responsibilities of drug companies in developing countries. Developing World Bioethics 1: 36–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Arrow, K. (1962) Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention, in: Nelson, R. ed. The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors. Princeton University Press, Princeton: 609–25.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Watal, J. (2000) Access to Essential Medicines in Developing Countries: Does the WTO TRIPS Agreement Hinder It? (Science, Technology and Innovation Discussion Paper No. 8). Center for International Development, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.: 5.

    Google Scholar 

  18. See B. Pécoul et al. (1999) Access to Essential Drugs in Poor Countries — A Lost Battle? Journal of the American Medical Association 281: 365, Table 2. See also the recent survey by experts of the Harvard School of Public Health and an international group of experts, the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Working group, available on www.accessmed-msf.org. See also another recent survey which the umbrella organisation of the American pharmaceutical industry (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) held among its members, New Medicines in Development, available on www.phrma.org.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. See Fortune 500. Fortune Magazine 2002; April. In 2001, the profits of America’s 10 largest pharmaceutical companies went up by 33% — from 28 to 37.3 billion dollars! — despite the bad economic situation. Profits are also growing much faster than the volume of R&D investments. According to the 2001 Fortune 500 ranking, the pharmaceutical industry was the most profitable industry for the tenth time in a row.

  20. Cf. the results of a survey which the umbrella organization of the American pharmaceutical industry (PhRMA) held among its members. See New Medicines in Development, available on www.phrma.org.

  21. See e.g. C.A.P. Braga et al. (1999) Intellectual property rights and economic development (Background paper for the World Development Report 1999). World Bank, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  22. See a recent interview with Dr. Jim Yong Kim, a doctor and medical anthropologist and co-founder of Partners in Health, a Boston-based (USA) organisation co-operating with poor communities in Boston, Haiti, Peru and Russia. Cf. Persistent Plagues, Persistent Paradigms & the Responsibility of Physicians in the HIV Epidemic: An Interview with Dr. Jim Kim by Faiz Ahmad, 8 November 2002, available on http://www.zmag.org.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Sigrid Sterckx

Authors
  1. Sigrid Sterckx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sigrid Sterckx.

Additional information

The author is a part-time Senior Research Fellow of the Fund for Scientific Research, Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Ghent University (Belgium) and a part-time Professor, Department of General Economics, University of Antwerp (Belgium).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sterckx, S. Can drug patents be morally justified?. SCI ENG ETHICS 11, 81–92 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-005-0059-3

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-005-0059-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation