What should be the price of flu antidote?

As the world is hit by yet another public health crisis, the old question is back to the fore: Will the pharmaceutical giants holding the patents of the allegedly effective antivirals for the swine flu virus cut their profit margins for the benefit of those who need the drugs but cannot afford the cost?

I looked for the news, but could find no such report. The issue of cost is largely ignored, deliberately or not, as if it does not matter in the global effort to curb the new outbreak of human swine flu, which the World Health Organization has warned about as a possible imminent pandemic.

It happens that the antiviral drugs WHO recommended for the swine flu virus this time are identical with those believed effective for the avian flu virus: Tamiflu made by Roche and Relanza produced by GlaxoSmithKline.

According to stock market analysis, both companies saw their share prices rise by about 8 percent in late April, obviously thanks to the outbreak.

Yet there is no report that the two companies will lower the price of the drugs although it was reported that they had donated doses to WHO.

If the price is not brought down, the donations by the company could only serve as posture for promoting a global buying spree of the drugs. After all, no commercials could be more effective than the WHO recommendations and people's cry for the drugs in this time of urgency. The donation to WHO, on the other hand, could save a handsome advertisement fee for the two companies.

Yet in all the news reports about swine flu, there is little talk about how much they charge for the two drugs.

A search on the Internet located several prices, with a discount quoted for the online purchase at $55 for 10 Tamilflu tablets of 75mg, and $69 for 20 doses of 5mg inhalators of Relenza.

Patients should follow their doctors' instructions, but generally a treatment of influenza symptoms requires two inhalations of Relenza or one tablet of Tamiflu every 12 hours for five days, according to the dosage suggested by the two companies.

For an average Chinese whose daily income is barely 42 yuan, human influenza A(H1N1) will be too costly a disease to contract. And, it is unlikely that the virus targets only those who can afford the drugs. In most cases, it is the poor who are more vulnerable during an epidemic.

Then, why have the companies set the price so high? Sure, they need the profits to keep them going. But how can they justify their profit margins at a time when the drugs are needed to save lives of those who are unable to pay the high price? Aren't the antivirals meant for saving lives in the first place?

Of course, governments may be expected to pay the bill for those who need but cannot afford the drugs. But, what about corporate social responsibility and the conscience of the pharmaceutical giants? Does the influenza outbreak mean nothing but another opportunity for them to pocket profits?

Throughout the previous health crises and the current worldwide financial tsunami, we have witnessed how greedy capital is. No crisis seems to be able to stop their drive for profits. So reducing the price of the antiviral drugs for swine flu victims is just empty talk. Those ruthlessly pursuing profits have long been hardened and are known to be callous when it comes to the needs of the poor.

And, they are protected by the so-called intellectual property rights, which guard against any attempt to manufacture even generic drugs. I shuddered when I read from a health care website that there is no known generic alternative or brand alternative to the two patented drugs. This fact, too, must have boosted the greed of capital.

If the international community could do little to appeal to the drug manufacturers' conscience to put human lives above profits, then the developing countries must be encouraged to break their monopoly.

Instead of issuing one alert after another raising the level of pandemic's urgency, WHO should also help the poor countries build the capacity to make affordable drugs on their own.

It is foreseeable that the international organization may not have the guts to offend global capital. But there will come a point at which people will find the greed of the capital intolerable.

After all, life is more precious and valuable than profits.

The author is a council member of the China Society for Human Rights Studies.

(China Daily 05/05/2009 page8)