A Response to the Comments by Boister and McGrady

Abstract

The authors contend Neil Boister’s and Benn McGrady’s arguments for situating a treaty against the illegal trade in counterfeit medicine under the auspices of the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNDOC), and update readers on developments, since the publication of their earlier paper proposing the creation of such a treaty, at theWorld Health Organization (WHO). We thank Professors Boister and McGrady for their contribution on achieving a treaty against counterfeit medicines. In this reply, we both respond to their argument for situating such a treaty under the auspices of the UN Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) c a proposal we consider to be on balance a poor idea c and update readers on the latest developments at the World Health Organization (WHO).We remain convinced that WHO is, for now, still the best institution under which to negotiate and achieve a treaty for improving the quality of medicines. But first, we must provide an update on an important issue of nomenclature. Our paper referred to deliberately false medicines as ‘counterfeit’ medicines. That was theWHO-approved term for about two decades, but it is now obsolete, after a decision in March 2011 by a WHO Working Group to reject it. * Associate Professor in the Faculties of Law and Medicine, University of Ottawa, Canada. [aattaran@uottawa.ca] ** Legatum Fellow in Global Prosperity, American Enterprise Institute, Washington DC, USA.