Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
BMJ Glob Health. 15 July 2022; Volume 7 (Issue 7); e009709.; DOI:10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009709
Perehudoff K, 't Hoen E, Mara K, Balasubramaniam T, Abbott F, et al.
BMJ Glob Health. 15 July 2022; Volume 7 (Issue 7); e009709.; DOI:10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009709
SUMMARY BOX
⇒ The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted how current international laws and practices fail to ensure medical countermeasures (i.e., vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics and personal protective equipment) are
equitably distributed in a global health crisis.
⇒ In 2021, the 194 Member States of the World Health Organization agreed to begin negotiations towards an international instrument that would better position the world to prevent, respond and prepare for future pandemics (often called a ‘pandemic treaty’.)
⇒ A pandemic treaty presents an opportunity to address these challenges in international law, and craft a better system, based on solidarity, for the global development and distribution of medical countermeasures.
⇒ We recommend that a pandemic treaty ensure sufficient financing for biomedical research and development (R&D), creates conditions for licensing government-funded R&D, mandates technology transfer, shares intellectual property, data and knowledge needed for the production and supply of products, and streamlines regulatory standards and procedures to market medical countermeasures.
⇒ We also recommend that a pandemic treaty ensures greater transparency and inclusive governance of these systems.
⇒ The aim of these components in a pandemic treaty should be to craft a better collective response to global health threats, consistent with existing international law, political commitments and sound public health practice.
⇒ The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted how current international laws and practices fail to ensure medical countermeasures (i.e., vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics and personal protective equipment) are
equitably distributed in a global health crisis.
⇒ In 2021, the 194 Member States of the World Health Organization agreed to begin negotiations towards an international instrument that would better position the world to prevent, respond and prepare for future pandemics (often called a ‘pandemic treaty’.)
⇒ A pandemic treaty presents an opportunity to address these challenges in international law, and craft a better system, based on solidarity, for the global development and distribution of medical countermeasures.
⇒ We recommend that a pandemic treaty ensure sufficient financing for biomedical research and development (R&D), creates conditions for licensing government-funded R&D, mandates technology transfer, shares intellectual property, data and knowledge needed for the production and supply of products, and streamlines regulatory standards and procedures to market medical countermeasures.
⇒ We also recommend that a pandemic treaty ensures greater transparency and inclusive governance of these systems.
⇒ The aim of these components in a pandemic treaty should be to craft a better collective response to global health threats, consistent with existing international law, political commitments and sound public health practice.
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
Health and Human Rights Journal. 11 June 2015
Kavanagh M, Cohn J, Mabote L, Meier BM, Williams BG, et al.
Health and Human Rights Journal. 11 June 2015
Recent years have seen significant advances in the science of using antiretroviral medicines (ARVs) to fight HIV. Where not long ago ARVs were used late in disease to prevent sick people from dying, today people living with HIV can use ARVs to achieve viral suppression early in the course of disease. This article reviews the mounting new scientific evidence of major clinical and prevention ARV benefits. This has changed the logic of the AIDS response, eliminating competition between "treatment" and "prevention" and encouraging early initiation of treatment for individual and public health benefit. These breakthroughs have implications for the health-related human rights duties of States. With medical advance, the "highest attainable standard" of health has taken a leap, and with it the rights obligations of States. We argue that access to early treatment for all is now a core State obligation and restricting access to, or failing to provide accurate information about, it violates both individual and collective rights. In a context of real political and technical challenges, however, in this article we review the policy implications of evolving human rights obligations given the new science. National and international legal standards require action on budget, health and intellectual property policy, which we outline.