HIV/AIDS: A Case Study of Patient Rights over Patent Rights

Zhihong Xu
ENAS 335: Professional Ethics
Date Due: December 4th, 2014

Zhihong Xu
HIV/AIDS: A Case Study of Patient Rights over Patent Rights
ENAS 335: Professional Ethics
Date Due: December 4th, 2014

Abstract
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immune deficiency
syndrome (AIDS) are diseases of inequality. Specifically, those living in
developed of areas of the world are able to receive the adequate treatment
of anti-retroviral drugs (ARVs) while those in developing areas are unable to
afford the costly regimen of drugs that prevent death. The high costs of the
drug are directly associated with the patent rights that large pharmaceutical
companies obtain, allowing them to generate profit after years of costly
research and development and clinical trials. Understanding that there is a
balance between saving the lives of those who cannot afford HIV/AIDS
treatment and protecting the interests of pharmaceutical companies as well
as the integrity of the patent system, this paper will present evidence from a
utilitarian and corporate social responsibility perspective, demonstrating that
there are instances where patients rights supersede patent rights.

I.

Introduction
HIV/AIDS is a chronic, life-threatening condition that suppresses a

patients immune system, ultimately inhibiting a patients own body from

fighting against other organisms that lead to sickness. Those who have AIDS
do not die of AIDS, but rather from common, opportunistic infections that
healthy humans can easily fend off. According to the WHO, 40 million people
in the world were living with HIV/AIDS as of 2014 and in this year, over 1.7
million individuals have died due to complications from AIDS. 1 Of the 40
million with HIV/AIDS, 95% of these patients live in developing nations and
most do not have access to adequate treatment. 2 Given the global nature of
HIV/AIDS, the number of people who are already exposed or at risk for
exposure to the disease, and the high number of fatalities resulting from the
condition, it is clear that tackling HIV/AIDS is of the utmost importance for
the general welfare of society.
Unfortunately, there is no cure for HIV/AIDS, but pharmaceutical
companies have developed drugs that have dramatically suppressed the
progression of the disease to a point where people with HIV/AIDS no longer
are condemned to a death-sentence but can instead live relatively normal
lives. These drugs, known as anti-retrovirals (ARVs), work through limiting
the HIV-count by inhibiting HIV replication in the patients bodies. The lower
1"Worldwide HIV & AIDS Statistics." HIV and AIDS Information and Resources. Web. 27 Nov. 2014.
2 Ibid
3

HIV-count helps stop the weakening of the immune system and gives the
immune system a chance to recover any existing damage caused by
HIV/AIDS. Often, a mixture of ARVs is taken in a treatment known as
combination therapy that prevents HIV from acquiring resistance to the
drugs. These drugs have given millions of those affected by HIV/AIDS both
the ability to live a higher quality of life as well as the ability to live longer.
However, the regimen of drugs is extremely expensive and must be taken for
the rest of a patients life. Using the standard guidelines for HIV/AIDS
treatment, the cost of ARVs for a single patient ranges from $2,000 to $5,000
a month. With the lifespan of HIV/AIDS patients increasing, the lifetime cost
of these drugs is estimated to exceed half a million dollars. 3 In other words,
only those who have the financial resources to purchase the drugs are able
to receive the necessary treatment.
Having established the degree of financial burden in terms of
treatment necessary to keep a patient with HIV/AIDS alive, it is now
important to turn attention to the root cause of the extremely high costs
associated

with

not

only

ARVs

but

other

novel

drugs

that

major

pharmaceutical companies create. While pharmaceutical companies certainly

are in the business of healthcare and delivering life-saving solutions, they
operate with a clear focus on profits as any other company in the world does.
With simple economics in mind, it becomes clear why the cost for
revolutionary drugs is so high; the total revenue from the sale of the drug for
3 Aguirre, Jessica C. "Cost Of Treatment Still A Challenge For HIV Patients In U.S."NPR. NPR, 27 July 2012. Web. 28
Nov. 2014.

must exceed the total costs associated with bringing the drug to market. On
the cost side of the equation, pharmaceutical companies spend on average 7
to 10 years and $500 million in research and development before a drug is
even submitted for clinical trials.4 Running clinical trials to obtain approval
for sale of the drug through organizations such as the Food and Drug
Administration is once again, a costly and lengthy endeavor. Finally, given
the laborious process it has already taken to obtain approval, pharmaceutical
companies desire to maximize the market share of their drugs and
consequently pour millions into marketing and educating doctors about the
new drugs. With four out of five drugs failing at the clinical trial stage,
pharmaceutical companies must leverage the few drugs that do pass the
clinical trials to cover the losses from their unsuccessful applications.
Accounting for the research and development costs of both drugs that are
successful and ones that fail, the cost to bring one successful drug to market
is estimated to be $5 billion. 5 With such high costs associated with the
development of the drug, not only do pharmaceutical companies file for
patent to protect their investments and maintain the exclusive right to
produce the drug for 20 years, but they also charge high prices under
monopolistic market conditions to recover their costs.
While protection under patent law to a certain degree gives large
pharmaceutical companies the incentive to develop potentially successful
drugs, they prevent generic, low cost pharmaceutical companies from
4 "Drugs: Why Drugs Cost So Much." MedicineNet. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.
5 Herper, Matthew. "The Cost Of Creating A New Drug Now $5 Billion, Pushing Big Pharma To Change." Forbes.
Forbes Magazine, 11 Aug. 2013. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.

replicating the drugs that are currently out of the price range of the roughly
27 million people living with HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan African and South East
Asia. UNAIDS estimates that only 4% of those who require ARVs in subSaharan Africa are able to obtain access to these life-saving medications. As
the world has become increasingly globalized, the protection of intellectual
property rights has become a major issue of concern for public health. In
1994, the World Trade Organization (WTO) established the Agreement on
Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) that has created
a uniform, global guideline for intellectual property standards. Countries that
wish to receive preferential treatment for international trade that the WTO
offers to its member nations must adhere strictly to the provisions of TRIPS.
Furthermore, recent developments in the United States have restricted the
ability for those living with HIV/AIDS around the world to access the lifesaving treatments.
The United States has recently carried out a series of secret
negotiations that have resulted in more stringent guidelines regarding the
protection of intellectual property. While having a solid foundation in
intellectual property is important to the vitality of any economy, the series of
new agreements known collectively as TRIPS-Plus have led to devastating
effects in the realm of public health. The agreements call for data exclusivity,
the extension of a patents life through evergreening methods, and the

restriction of compulsory licenses and parallel importing for generic

manufacturers.6
The data exclusivity clause in the TRIPS-Plus agreement serves to
impede the flow of drugs into HIV-burdened areas. When a large
pharmaceutical company in the United States conducts a clinical trial, the
records of clinical trials of innovative drugs are locked away for 10 years. 7
Thus, generic manufacturers cannot access information about the drugs
safety and efficacy. Generic manufacturers hoping to obtain permission to
sell a drug cannot simply show that their generic versions of the drug are
therapeutically

equivalent

to

the

patented

product.

Instead,

generic

manufacturers must either wait for the exclusivity period to end upon which
the manufacturers can then gain access to the information about the drugs
safety or they are forced into the unethical position of repeating lengthy
clinical trials on human subjects when the information from the previous trial
of a clinically identical drug already exists.
Pharmaceutical

companies

can

also

use

method

known

as

evergreening to extend the effective lifespan of a drugs patent. As the name

implies, evergreening is the process of tweaking something old and calling it
new. Large pharmaceutical companies protect their patents by slightly
modifying an existing drug in a manner that does not improve the drug for
the patients and then filing for a new patent.8 Knowing that patents are
6 "TRIPS, TRIPS Plus and Doha." MSF Access Campaign. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.
7 Ibid.
8 Collier, R. "Drug Patents: The Evergreening Problem." Canadian Medical Association Journal 185.9 (2013): E385386. Web. 1 Dec. 2014.

traditionally granted for novel creations that add value, evergreening

undermines the integrity of the patent system by allowing pharmaceutical
companies to charge high prices in a market without competitors.
TRIPS-Plus has also created new provisions in the area of compulsory
licensing and parallel importing. Compulsory licenses are granted when a
government allows another party to produce a patented product without the
consent of the patents owner.9 TRIPS does allow for the exemption of
compulsory

licensing

under

instances

of

national

emergencies

and

healthcare calamities when the government has no other choice than to

bypass the patent system in the interest maintaining public health and
fulfilling its duty to protect its citizens. However, both TRIPS and TRIPS-Plus
only allow for compulsory licensing when the product is produced for the
domestic market, not the export market. Many of the worlds low-cost,
generic pharmacies are located in India, Thailand, and Brazil while the bulk
of HIV/AIDS patients are in the HIV-prevalent areas of sub-Saharan Africa and
South East Asia. This geographic mismatch necessitates the export of the
generic ARVs, but it is precisely these new TRIPS-Plus regulations that choke
the export of the affordable, life-saving medications to those who need it the
most. Under the current provisions, countries are allowed to import medicine
from a country where it is cheapest to obtain. Nonetheless, TRIPS-Plus places
restrictions on the importing of generic drugs such as the low cost ARVs
produced in India. With TRIPS-Plus tying the hands of generic pharmaceutical

9 "Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceuticals and TRIPS." WTO. World Trade Organization, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.
8

companies together, the millions relying desperately needing ARVs are

unable to obtain access to these drugs purely due to cost while large
pharmaceutical companies in the United States continue to profit given their
monopoly share in the market. The United States ought to reevaluate the
TRIPS-Plus provisions in order to better balance the needs of society with the
need for intellectual property rights.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II provides insight
into the interests of the relevant stakeholders, the patients and established
pharmaceutical companies in the United States. This section will also link the
transmission mechanisms between patients and pharmaceutical companies
by drawing attention to the patent system, as it is ultimately patent
protection that prevents fair competition and affordable prices of medication.
Section III will analyze the debate through a rule-utilitarian perspective and
will present evidence demonstrating that the utility gained by saving millions
of

lives

outweighs

the

utility

gained

from

generating

profits

for

pharmaceutical companies. Section IV of the paper will frame the argument

through the lens of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to demonstrate that
it is in the pharmaceutical industrys best interest to allow patient rights to
supersede patent rights in certain instances such as the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
Section V concludes. Note: This paper uses HIV/AIDS as a platform for
analysis but the patient rights vs. patent rights debate can be extended and
extrapolated to other areas of public health.

II. Interests of the Relevant Stakeholders: Patients, Big Pharma, and

the Patent System
In the discussion of whether patient rights or patent rights command
more weight, it is important to establish the motivations and interests of the
parties involved. The two obvious organizations in this case study are
patients living with HIV/AIDS and pharmaceutical companies that own the
proprietary knowledge regarding the composition of the ARVs. However, one
must

not

forget

the

intermediary

between

the

patient

and

the

pharmaceutical company. The intermediary responsible for creating high

prices and restricting access to ARVs in developing areas of the world is the
global patent system.
The individuals living with HIV/AIDS have simple and linear interests.
These individuals simply wish to obtain access to affordable ARVs that will
save their lives. These patients only wish to be able to enjoy the healthy and
productive lives of those who have HIV/AIDS but are able to afford the ARVs.
According to the International Declaration of Human Rights, all humans have
the basic and intrinsic right to life and health. Given this right, patients with
HIV/AIDS focus on whether universal access to treatment is a moral
imperative rather than whether universal access is economically feasible.
The interests of big pharma are slightly more nuanced. One can
argue that these companies have a variety of considerations, as they are in
the business of providing healthcare solutions, but also operate as regular
corporations. Using the healthcare approach, one can make the case that
large pharmaceutical companies are driven by the desire to save lives
10

through the creation of novel drugs. However, healthcare approach can be

easily ruled out by extrapolating the scenario to the end; it is hard to imagine
that pharmaceutical companies define success by seeking to cure every
possible disease, as doing so would effectively ruin their own market. These
companies cannot make money if everyone is healthy. The more compelling
story falls back to economics. At the end of the day, pharmaceutical
companies function just like any other firm in any other industry. The focus
lies in generating profits for the company and its shareholders. In the context
of the HIV/AIDS case study, pharmaceutical companies are able to maintain
high prices for the ARVs as long as they have the intellectual property
protection necessary to prevent market entry from competitors.
While not necessarily a stakeholder, the patent system plays an
important role in shaping the debate between patients and pharmaceutical
companies. There are many cases to be made to support the protection of
intellectual property rights. The sole purpose of the patent system is to
reward and protect an individuals or firms hard work of developing a new
creation. This argument states that given the high costs of research and
development, companies ought to have the right to profit and recuperate the
research and development costs by protecting the creation from the hands of
competitors. Another strong argument is that without the protection of
intellectual property rights, social welfare as a whole would decrease as
companies and individuals would be less motivated to sink time and money
into developing new technologies and remedies. Thus, in the case of

11

pharmaceutical companies, fewer life-saving drugs would be developed

because these companies could not guarantee that they would recover the
costs of bringing a drug to market. In the debate of patients vs. patents, it is
of the utmost importance to walk the fine line between allowing individuals
to retain their intrinsic and universal rights to life and health while not
undermining the integrity of the patent system.
III.

Lives Worth More Than Profit via Utilitarianism

The paper will now consider whether a patients utility gained from

access to ARVs outweighs the profit and the benefits that are generated with
the protection of the pharmaceutical industrys patents. Given that the
discussion of utility ultimately boils down to happiness, one must first agree
upon the definition of what happiness is. For the purposes of this case,
happiness is defined as pleasure and the absence of pain.
There are two schools of utilitarian thought: Jeremy Benthams actutilitarianism and John Mills rule-utilitarianism. Act-utilitarianism advocates
for doing whatever maximizes utility at the end of the day. However,
Benthams act-utilitarianism runs into trouble as it does not respect
individual rights, it is unable to make interpersonal comparisons of utility,
and it cannot account for the ordinal nature of utility and happiness. Mills
rule-utilitarianism reconciles some of the objections that people have to
Benthams principles; he still advocates for maximizing utility, but focuses on
rules of conduct that if followed universally, would produce the greatest longterm utility, rather than reducing the decision tree to one singular event as
12

Bentham does. Furthermore, Mills rule-utilitarianism states that the actions

of maximizing utility must be grounded in the principle of doing no harm and
respecting human liberty. It appears that using Mills rule-utilitarianism is the
most appropriate framework for evaluating utility in the case of HIV/AIDS as
it acknowledges the importance of long-term utility and captures the
fundamental, moral imperative of doing no harm and respecting human
liberty.
To analyze the utility gained from the protection of patents by large
pharmaceutical companies, a proper analysis from the Mill perspective must
separate the aspects of the pharmaceutical industry that generate either
positive or negative utility into the component pieces. The pharmaceutical
industry gains utility or happiness by generating profit and in 2012, the 11
largest pharmaceutical companies in the United States generated $85 billion
in net profit.10 Thus, using this benchmark to judge utility, it seems that the
utility generated by pharmaceutical companies is rather high. However, this
previous analysis is misguided as it focuses on the bygones of the people
who have already been treated. Instead, the discussion needs to center on
what is the current utility when pharmaceutical companies keep prices high
and what is the future utility when the pharmaceutical companies expand
access to ARVs at affordable prices. Because very few individuals in
developing nations can even afford to purchase ARVs, the current utility
gained from selling ARVs to HIV-prevalent areas is quite low.

10 "Big Pharma." Manufacturers Drug & Device Companies; Lawsuits & Facts. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2014.
13

With pharmaceutical companies having little to gain in HIV-prevalent

areas of the world, the focus now shifts to what the pharmaceutical
companies have to lose if they were to lower prices and expand access to
ARVs. The generically produced ARVs, often costing just $200 per year
compared to $2000 to $5000 a month for patent protected ARVs, represents
the cost of inputs and materials necessary to create the ARVs. These low
cost formulations do not charge a premium to recover losses in the research
and

development

stages.

Understanding

that

large

pharmaceutical

companies can indeed sell the ARVs at the price of the inputs and not incur
losses from the sale, it seems that the losses from expanding access of ARVs
to the developing world is minimal. The only losses come from the inability to
recoup the costs of bringing a drug to market, but as previously mentioned,
these are sunk costs and thus should be considered bygones.
The attention now moves to determining what patients have to gain,
but evaluating the utility gained from granting access to ARVs is a tedious
and tricky process as it involves both hard, numerical metrics such as
economic productivity as well as intangible measures of happiness such as
satisfaction derived from living a long, fulfilling life. Furthermore, there is a
utility calculation at a personal level and then a calculation of utility across
the entire subset of the population that is affected by HIV/AIDS. Metrics such
as economic productivity of a human being are hard to measure let alone
metrics that assign numbers to the value of life itself. A variety of US
government agencies have attempted the difficult process of valuing a

14

human life. The United States Office of Budget and Management arrives at
$7 to $9 million, the Environmental Protection Agency comes up with $9.1
million, and the Food and Drug Administration allocates $8 million per life. 11
Economists at Stanford University have also run analyses that conclude the
value of each year of life is $129,000, which falls in line with the estimates
from the various United States government agencies.12
Using these figures, this paper will now run some back of the envelope
calculations to try to fix a numerical figure on the current loss from HIV/AIDS
deaths. The current loss equals the potential gain in utility from giving
HIV/AIDS patients access to the life-saving ARVs. The paper first will consider
the utility lost on an annual basis and then work on establishing a figure for
the total loss if all patients with HIV/AIDs were to die. With 1.7 million people
dying this year from HIV/AIDS and a value of roughly $9 million per life,
society as a whole lost roughly $15.3 trillion in utility in just one year.
Because HIV/AIDS is ultimately fatal without treatment, one can assume that
all people who cannot afford ARVs will die unless prices are lowered. With
95% of the 40 million living with HIV/AIDS residing in developing areas of the
world and assuming that none of these individuals can afford treatment,
there are approximately 38 million individuals with HIV/AIDs will ultimately
die from the disease. Using the baseline of $9 million per life again, the
cumulative losses in the long run are roughly $342 trillion. These calculations
prove that there are no circumstances under which the losses of forgoing
11 Partnoy, Frank. "The Cost of a Human Life, Statistically Speaking - The Globalist."The Globalist. N.p., 21 July
2012. Web. 28 Nov. 2014.

12 Kingsbury, Kathleen. "The Value of a Human Life: $129,000." Time. Time Inc., 20 May 2008. Web. 28 Nov. 2014.
15

patent rights by large pharmaceutical companies exceed the potential gains

of patients who would obtain access to the life-saving ARVs.
The above calculations are a rough attempt to estimate the total loss
of letting patent rights overrule patient rights. However, it seems rather
crude to attach numbers to what a human life is worth. Referring back to the
International Declaration of Human Rights, all humans have the basic and
intrinsic right to life and health, regardless of income and ability to pay for
treatment and this right to life and health is an absolute that cannot be
circumvented or diminished. With these rights as absolutes, it then becomes
a universal, moral duty for anyone and everyone to ensure that each human
being does not have his or her fundamental rights infringed upon. From this,
one can conclude that it is impossible assign values to what a human life is
worth, as the value of a human life is priceless and is greater than any
possible utility that a pharmaceutical company receives. Bringing the focus
back to Mills rule-utilitarianism of advocating for actions that yield the
highest long-term utility as long as they do no harm, it is obvious that
pharmaceutical companies raising the prices of ARVs under the protection of
the patent system violate the do no harm principle and have disregarded
long term utility; these companies have taken away the universal right to life
and health through the leveraging of patent policies. The utilitarian analysis
provides conclusive evidence that patient rights are far more important that
patent rights in the case of HIV/AIDS.
IV. Corporate Social Responsibility
16

This paper will now transition to analyzing patent rights vs. patient
rights in the case of HIV/AIDs from a CSR perspective. More specifically, the
paper will show that it is actually in the pharmaceutical companies best
interest to give up the patent protection and the potential profits and
instead, lower the prices of ARVs. First, it is important to understand what
CSR is and how companies can engage in CSR. CSR is the corporate initiative
to assess and take responsibility for a companys effect on the environment
and impact on social welfare. CSR is also known as corporate citizenship and
often means that a company bears short-term costs that do not provide
immediate, financial gains to the company, but rather invests in a long-term
social or environmental strategy. According to Michael Porter and Mark
Kramer in Strategy and Society, leveraging CSR properly can be a source of
opportunity, innovation, and competitive rather than cost.
Two justifications of moral obligation and reputation for CSR resonate in
the context of the HIV/AIDS case study. The moral obligation argues that
companies have an intrinsic duty to be good citizens and to do the right
thing. Companies should achieve commercial success in ways that honor
ethical values and respect people, communities, and the environment.
Forbes Magazine investigates the benefits of CSR in Why CSR? The Benefits
of Corporate Social Responsibility Will Move You to Act. In an interview with
Forbes, Garratt Hasenstab, Director of Sustainability at the Verdigris Group, a
real estate development and consulting firm, points to the value added
dimensions of CSR from the moral perspective:
17

Our CSR policy is at the core of our daily operations and guides our
future progress. We benefit from these efforts in a number of ways.
Our clients want to work with us because we are focused on a healthier
and more productive world. The true value we receive from our
ongoing initiatives is that of social good will we believe that setting a
good example is the greatest benefit in that we inspire other
organizations, companies and individuals to up their game when it
comes to social and environmental responsibility, which in turn
encourages further inspiration in the community leading to a more
enlightened perspective on how to run ones business or lead ones
life. 13
John G. Taft, CEO of RBC Wealth Management-USA, adds to the discussion of
the value of CSR and states, Employees and customers want to work with a
company that they respect. By engaging in CSR and honoring the previously
mentioned universal rights to health and life, pharmaceutical companies can
fulfill their moral obligation of doing the right thing and also can reap the
benefits of employee and customer satisfaction.
Reputation is also another justification for CSR as reputation improves
a companys image, strengthens its brand, enlivens the morale of its
employees, and can even raise the value of the companys stock. Many of
the worlds largest companies such as Coca-Cola, Apple, and Starbucks are
participating in a campaign known as RED where a certain percentage of
13 Thorpe, Devin. "Why CSR? The Benefits Of Corporate Social Responsibility Will Move You To Act." Forbes. Forbes
Magazine, 8 May 2013. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.

18

revenue from products that are red colored, with red being the color
associated with HIV/AIDS, are donated towards the Global Fund that provides
humanitarian assistance for those living with HIV/AIDS. 14 To date, this
campaign has already contributed $275 million to the Global Fund. This
highly visible campaign not only provides a revenue boost to the companies
by encouraging consumers to help a worthy cause, but also allows the
company to remain on high ground in the eyes of the public as leaders in the
crusade to eliminate HIV/AIDS. Furthermore, this high profile nature of the
RED campaign acts as a free marketing opportunity for companies such
Coca-Cola. Given the benefits to these companies reputation by engaging in
CSR, pharmaceutical companies should seize the opportunity to also partake
in this practice. Instead of being viewed by the public as giants that
manipulate prices through patent protection and monopolistic practices,
pharmaceutical companies can positively transform their image into one of
being powerful leaders spearheading the fight against HIV/AIDS by allowing
for patient rights to come before patent rights.
V. Conclusion
This paper has used HIV/AIDs as a platform to evaluate whether patent
rights or patient rights carry more weight. This paper has established the
scale of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, the treatment necessary to combat the
disease, and the mechanisms such as patent protection that prevent millions
in the developing world from obtaining access to ARVs at affordable prices.
14 "WHAT WILL IT TAKE?" (RED). N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.
19

The paper also constructed the motivations of the relevant parties in the
debate. Based on Mills utilitarian approach, the paper has shown that the
potential utility gains from granting access to ARVs far outweigh the
potential loss in profits for the pharmaceutical companies. Furthermore, this
paper has reinforced its stance that patient rights exceed patent rights in
instances of humanitarian crises by presenting evidence that engaging in
corporate

social

responsibility

is

in

the

best

interest

of

the

large

pharmaceutical firms. However, the paper would not be complete without

offering a solution to provide the fundamental rights of life and health to
those who cannot afford ARVs without undermining the integrity of the
patent system.
The best method of championing patient rights over patent rights is to
create exemption clauses that would prevent data exclusivity and allow for
ease in issuing compulsory licenses for life-saving drugs such as ARVs. Such
exemptions for compulsory licensing have been created in the 2001 Doha
Declaration, but more needs to be done; TRIPS-Plus has increased
intellectual property rights restrictions and has prevented countries from
exporting the generically produced ARVs.15 Granting exemptions would
prevent the information from clinical trials of revolutionary medicines from
being locked away for ten years and would allow the generic pharmaceutical
industry to create and distribute affordable ARVs to the millions of HIV/AIDs
patients that currently do not have access. The United States, being the
15

"Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health." WTO. World Trade Organization, 20 Nov. 2001. Web.
01 Dec. 2014.

20

largest exporter of intellectual property, would remain on firm ground in

protecting the status of patents while serving the interests of people around
the world by allowing exemptions to TRIPS-PLUS for issues that compromise
the health of a nation.

References
Aguirre, Jessica C. "Cost Of Treatment Still A Challenge For HIV Patients In
U.S." NPR. NPR, 27 July 2012. Web. 28 Nov. 2014.

21

"Big Pharma." Manufacturers Drug & Device Companies; Lawsuits & Facts.
N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2014.
Collier, R. "Drug Patents: The Evergreening Problem." Canadian Medical
Association Journal 185.9 (2013): E385-386. Web. 1 Dec. 2014.
"Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceuticals and TRIPS." WTO. World Trade
Organization, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.
"Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health." WTO. World Trade
Organization, 20 Nov. 2001. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.
"Drugs: Why Drugs Cost So Much." MedicineNet. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Dec.
2014.
Herper, Matthew. "The Cost Of Creating A New Drug Now $5 Billion, Pushing
Big Pharma To Change." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 11 Aug. 2013.
Web. 30 Nov. 2014.
Kingsbury, Kathleen. "The Value of a Human Life: $129,000." Time. Time Inc.,
20 May 2008. Web. 28 Nov. 2014.
Partnoy, Frank. "The Cost of a Human Life, Statistically Speaking - The
Globalist." The Globalist. N.p., 21 July 2012. Web. 28 Nov. 2014.
Thorpe, Devin. "Why CSR? The Benefits Of Corporate Social Responsibility
Will Move You To Act." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 8 May 2013. Web.
01 Dec. 2014.
"TRIPS, TRIPS Plus and Doha." MSF Access Campaign. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov.
2014.
"WHAT WILL IT TAKE?" (RED). N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.

22

"Worldwide HIV & AIDS Statistics." HIV and AIDS Information and Resources.
N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2014.

23