Abstract
The human rights responsibilities of drug companies have been considered for years by nongovernmental organizations, but were most sharply defined in a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, submitted to the United Nations General Assembly in August 2008. The "Human Rights Guidelines for Pharmaceutical Companies in relation to Access to Medicines" include responsibilities for transparency, management, monitoring and accountability, pricing, and ethical marketing, and against lobbying for more protection in intellectual property laws, applying for patents for trivial modifications of existing medicines, inappropriate drug promotion, and excessive pricing. Two years after the release of the Guidelines, the PLoS Medicine Debate asks whether drug companies are living up to their human rights responsibilities. Sofia Gruskin and Zyde Raad from the Harvard School of Public Health say more assessment is needed of such responsibilities; Geralyn Ritter, Vice President of Global Public Policy and Corporate Responsibility at Merck & Co. argues that multiple stakeholders could do more to help States deliver the right to health; and Paul Hunt and Rajat Khosla introduce Mr. Hunt's work as the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to the highest attainable standard of health, regarding the human rights responsibilities of pharmaceutical companies and access to medicines.
Highlights
Background to the debateThe human rights responsibilities of drug companies have been considered for years by nongovernmental organizations, but were most sharply defined in a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, submitted to the United Nations General Assembly in August 2008
While States bear primary responsibility for the realization of the right to health, it requires a genuine effort among many actors, including governments, multilateral organizations, nongovernmental organizations, health care professionals, and the pharmaceutical industry
This collaboration is important given the many complex factors that adversely affect the right to health, such as poverty, poor infrastructure and distribution channels, corruption, lack of health care education and awareness, inadequate public health services, and lack of adequately trained health care professionals
Summary
Are Drug Companies Living Up to Their Human Rights Responsibilities? The Merck Perspective. Sofia Gruskin and Zyde Raad from the Harvard School of Public Health say more assessment is needed of such responsibilities; Geralyn Ritter, Vice President of Global Public Policy and Corporate Responsibility at Merck & Co. argues that multiple stakeholders could do more to help States deliver the right to health; and Paul Hunt and Rajat Khosla introduce Mr Hunt’s work as the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to the highest attainable standard of health, regarding the human rights responsibilities of pharmaceutical companies and access to medicines. Merck was one of the first in the industry to have a formal policy of differential pricing for its antiretroviral medicines and newest vaccines (http://www.merck.com/ corporate-responsibility/access/access-developing-emerging/ approach.html), and has since taken the approach of differentiating its pricing based upon a particular country’s level of economic development for many of its newer products for chronic disease, such as its medicine for type 2 diabetes Another tool to improve access is voluntary licensing. Botswana’s PMTCT and treatment programs have resulted in halving the mortality rate in adults in that country between 1980 and 2007 [4]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
