The bien-pensant MSF have a new book out confusingly entitled "The global politics of pharmaceutical monopoly".
The author, Ellen T'Hoen, is presumably referring in her title to the temporary product "monopolies" granted by pharmaceutical patents. She clearly thinks they are A Bad Thing.
But hang on a minute. MSF and their buddies at Oxfam are amongst the most vocal supporters of monopolies in government-provided healthcare. Why are state health monopolies (which are permanent, and encompass all kinds of different services) any better than pharmaceutical patents (which last 20 years from filing and only cover a single product)?
Patents are responsible for most modern medicines. State healthcare monpolies, by contrast, are responsible for thousands of deaths by hospital infection, waiting lists, archaic technology and mismanagement. Britain's creaking National Health Service is a depressing example.
MSF need to spend a little less time banging on about patents, and spend a little more time advocating for decent healthcare systems. After all, the very reason they exist is to provide healthcare where governments have failed to do so.
Comments