--Via ESCR-Right-to-Health
Access to medicines resolution adopted by UN HR Council
From: shila kaur <kaur_shila@yahoo.com> Health Action International Asia Pacific (HAIAP)
Courtesy of TWN Info service. Article written by K.M. Gopakumar of PHM.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third World Network www.twn.my
Access to medicines resolution adopted excerpts
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.
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.
Out of 47 members of the Human Rights Council, 31 voted for the resolution while 16 abstained from voting.
[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].
[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.]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
According to an observer, the resolution is a step forward in addressing the issue of access to medicines within the right to health framework.
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.
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.
Secondly, unlike some earlier resolutions, the scope of the June 2013 resolution is not limited to essential medicines and covers all medicines.
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.
Fourthly, the resolution through OP 5(b) and OP 5(m), clearly establishes the link between local production and the right to health framework.
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.
Sixthly, the resolution also establishes the link between access to medicines and universal health coverage in OP 5(p).
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.
Another observer points out some of the shortcomings of the resolution.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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).
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."
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." +
__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
.
__,_._,___
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
womenESCR+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/womenESCR?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "(PWESCR) E group on women's ESCR" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to womenescr+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
For University of Pakistan Study Material Sharing, Discussion, etc, Come and join us at http://4e542a34.linkbucks.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Study" group.
To post to this group, send email to http://ca13054d.tinylinks.co
For more options, visit this group at
http://004bbb67.any.gs
No comments:
Post a Comment