AIDS Controversy

The problem of acquired immune deficiency syndrome in silly countries in Africa had been one of the major health problems the world is facing. Needless to say, many invite died without even having undergone medication.Perhaps one of the most pressing issues involving this problem is the commitment of astronomic pharmaceutical companies in the fall in States to give away exhaust AIDS interventions to ridiculous African countries ridden with AIDS in exchange for its keep unmistakable protection.The question now arises on whether this scheme of giving away free AIDS treatment would strike a balance in its continued patent protection vis--vis the continuing problem of AIDS in pathetic African countries.A number of international non- organisational organizations bemuse launched campaigns against pharmaceutical giants engaging in a long term endeavor to widen the advance of poor people to essential medicines, to attain significant reductions on the prices of brand medicines fro m large(p) pharmaceutical companies, and to support the sale and production of generic drugs (Poku, Whiteside, and Sandkjaer, 2007).The issue of patents on pharmaceutical products have started in the negotiations ate the World Trade Organization. The WTOs Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights that took event in 1995 compels countries to include pharmaceutical products and practices in patent protection afterwards a phase-in period associated to the level of development (Newfarmer, 2003).International intellectual property patents ensure a 20-year market monopoly for new products and processes (Finkel, 2007). Given this, no other(a) corporation can enter the same market, make up ones minding the market argument to those who have patents.The protection of intellectual property in the biosciences on a worldwide level has to deal with very different contexts and situations. (Lenk, Hoppe, and Andorno, 2007).At first glance, it seems that the pharmaceu tical companies are doing an altruistic effort in providing free access to AIDS treatment in poor African countries, which are ridden with AIDS epidemic in spite of the fact that they were totally compelled to do so by the United States government.The main question here is not whether it is proper for the United States government to compel these pharmaceutical companies just now rather on whose interests are interrupt served with this scheme of giving away free AIDS treatment in exchange for continued patent protection.The continued patent protection of drugs relating to AIDS, in spite of the efforts to distribute free medications on AIDS in poor African countries, has detrimental effects to the victims themselves.Aside from the victims, the market itself for pharmaceutical products and processes pull up stakes excessively suffer as they entrust be ruled by a monopoly of patent-holding pharmaceutical companies.The continued patent protection would further limit the access of people to AIDS treatment.If the patent protection for pharmaceutical companies is to continue, this will limit the opportunities for other pharmaceutical companies to develop their own medication for AIDS treatment.If in that respect will be no other pharmaceutical company that will come up with a treatment for AIDS, those infected with the disease will have no other option but to buy the only product in the market despite its high price.If the patents will be lifted, this will benefit not only those in the poor nations but everyone who has been infected with the disease as they will enjoy the benefits market competition will bring.The absence of patent protection will give other pharmaceutical companies the opportunity to develop their own products and processes aimed at treating AIDS infection. If this happens, thither will be more products available in the market. More corresponding products in the market will compel pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices.