PRIVATE PATENTS AND PUBLIC HEALTH

The decisions in answer (b) could have life and death consequences for
millions of people. Answer (b) is the preferred option of those who
favour an Art 31 solution even though it is the less swift and sure
option. The best option, answer (a), is instead the Article 30 solution.”
PRIVATE PATENTS AND PUBLIC HEALTH
Unfortunately, the WTO negotiations took an entirely different
direction. Months of discussions in the TRIPS Council showed a deep
divide between developing countries seeking a workable solution and the
industrialised world that tried to limit the scope of any solution as much
as possible. In an attempt to meet the 2002 deadline, most delegations
were prepared to accept a far from ideal compromise text that became
known as “the December 16 Motta text,” named after the chair of the
TRIPS Council. The Motta text was ambiguous on the scope of diseases,
through its reference to Paragraph 1 of the Doha Declaration, which
mentions AIDS, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria and other epidemics. A
more appropriate basis for the scope of disease would have been Paragraph
4 of the Doha Declaration, which refers to public health problems in
general. On the issue of country eligibility, the Motta text seemed to be at
odds with the Doha Declaration, which called for TRIPS to be implemented
in a manner to “promote access to medicines for all.” The Motta text also
created cumbersome procedures to determine the eligibility of countries
to use the system, and measures to prevent diversion of medicines to rich
country markets.
Although the Motta text was seen as far from ideal, countries were
ready to agree to it. NGOs called upon the negotiators to reject the text. 66
In the end, it was the US that vetoed the proposal. The drug companies
had been lobbying fiercely to restrict the scope of diseases and eligible
countries. The US considered the scope of diseases in the Motta text to be
too broadly defined, and rejected the proposal and announced a unilateral
moratorium on disputes. In an attempt to break the deadlock, the EC
followed up on an earlier US proposal and listed diseases for which the
solution could apply, and introduced an advisory role for WHO in case a
member requested this. 67
This proposal was rejected by the developing countries as backtracking
on the Doha Declaration and was met with a wave of objections from all
over the world. In numerous letters, professional medical organisations,
individual medical doctors, NGOs, consumer groups and human rights
groups rejected any further narrowing of the scope of the Doha
Declaration. Apart from HIV/AIDS, the list included only diseases for
43