Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-01-Speech-4-113"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051201.30.4-113"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Although they introduce some improvements to the regulation proposed by the Commission, Parliament’s proposals do nothing to tackle the market stranglehold that the practice of patenting drugs confers on the multinational pharmaceutical corporations, which is the key issue at stake here.
The proposals put forward by Parliament make a point of ‘legalising’ and imposing a ‘compulsory’ model for dispensing essential medicines to vast numbers of people. The professed aim is regulation, yet this is a deeply cynical move, as the proposals fail to provide mechanisms for promoting research, and fail to develop a capacity for research, manufacturing and supply – by and for these communities – of the medicines that are essential to them and to which they are entitled.
The idea is to ‘regulate’ access to medicines for so-called underdeveloped countries, in such a way that the multinationals can charge less, thus enabling them to increase their markets without losing the privileged status that they enjoy.
This strategy, however, runs counter to the conclusions of the World Trade Organisation’s Doha Conference, which stated that countries should ‘break’ patents on the grounds of public health, Brazil and South Africa being cases in point, as they have succeeded in providing medicines to AIDS patients free of charge.
Hence our vote against."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples