Drug donations are great, but should Big Pharma be setting the agenda?

Monday 29 April 2013 12.01 BST Critics fear that giving out free medicines allows pharmaceutical companies to decide which diseases are treated Vaccine donations might end after a period of time, leaving governments to pick up the bill. Photograph: Chris Hondros/Getty Images Adam Robert Green for African Arguments, part of the Guardian Africa Network In the early 2000s, pharmaceutical companies were high on activists' hit lists, prompted by Big Pharma's ill-advised attempt to sue the South African government for patent infringement on HIV drugs; an attempt to deal with the country's epidemic by allowing cheaper, generic copies to be sold. Today, the discourse seems merrier. Charities and NGOs sit down with the same companies, discussing how best to confront public health challenges in the developing world. The talk is of partnerships and "win-wins". It isn't all idle chatter. Drug donations, reinvestment of profits in developing countries and a more flexible approach to intellectual property have all signalled a more collaborative approach, with the likes of GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Johnson and Johnson and Merck all performing well in the 2012 Access to Medicine index. But while talk of a new era of friendship is appealing (not least to the companies), there are still unresolved debates about the role that companies play in shaping the public health agenda in developing countries. Even the most seemingly charitable acts have come under scrutiny. Take drug donations. Wh...
Source: PharmaGossip - Category: Pharma Commentators Authors: Source Type: blogs