Question

Read the In-Depth Integrative Case 1.2 (Pharmaceutical Companies, Intellectual Property, and the Global AIDS Epidemic) in your text, Chapter 3. Respond to questions 1-4 at the end of the case with complete and thorough responses. Use critical thinking to apply depth and breadth. This writing assignment should be completed in the standard APA format. Upload the assignment to the proper assignment folder. (Unit 2 AS: Evaluate a Company’s CSR and Sustainability Program) International Management

1. Do Pharmaceutical companies have a responsibility to distribute drugs for free or at a low cost in developing countries? What are the main arguments for and against such an approach.What are the advantages and disadvantages of giving drugs for free versus offering them at a low no-profit price?

2. What are the principle arguments of pharmaceutical companies that oppose making exceptions to IPR laws for developing countries? What are the arguments by NGOs and others for relaxing IPR laws?

Answer 1

Ans 1: I don’t necessarily think that they have the “responsibility” to do so but I think that they should want to as there are millions dying and suffering tremendously from this epidemic. Pharmaceutical companies make billions and billions of dollars a year, I feel that they should want to help people who can’t help themselves. It is not fair for them to suffer and die because they don’t have the money to treat themselves.

Arguments for: Devastating amounts of people are dying and suffering from this disease and are not able to afford proper treatments. Activists and organization believe that there shouldn’t be a price on life and that treatment should be available to these less fortunate people.

Arguments Against: It argues that they will not make enough profit. The price of research and development is outrageous and they worry that the decrease in profits will not be able to recover from the other expenses.

Giving the drug away for free could potentially hurt the supplier and it could also start corruption. If it is given for free there is no telling who will be getting the drug, there is no control of distribution. Someone who is in extremely bad shape and really needs the drug could be losing their opportunity to the drug to someone who is fine and just wants it to try to sell and make the profit off of these poor individuals who really need it. Instead, if they sold the drug at a low cost they could still have some sort of control over distribution and still be making some revenue.

Ans 2: Some of the arguments are that the pharmaceutical companies that oppose making exceptions to IPR laws for developing countries are that if other countries were producing generic brands they would no longer be able to compete and make large profits. The principal argument of NGO and others is that they cannot afford the brand name prices; because of the moral rights, the rights of these people should be protected. Since they cannot afford these brands, IPR laws have changed in favor of these people. These laws have allowed the production of generic brands which are much more affordable.