Poor people in the developing world have a right to medicine
Here is a simple moral proposition. No one in America, or anywhere in the world, should die or suffer unnecessarily because they cannot afford a prescription drug which, in many cases, costs a few cents or a few dollars to manufacture.
As Chairman of the US Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee(Help) I’m going to do everything I can to develop a new approach to the development and manufacturing of prescription drugs that responds to medical need, rather than short-term shareholder profit. Given the power and greed of the pharmaceutical industry this is not an easy task, but it’s one that must be pursued.
The tragic reality is that, today, millions of people around the world are suffering, and dying, from preventable diseases because they can’t afford the outrageous prices charged by pharmaceutical companies. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), one third of humanity lacks access to essential medicines. For a staggering number of people around the world, this leads to what the WHO calls “a cascade of preventable misery and suffering.”
There are a number of reasons why this tragic reality continues to happen.
First, too often drug companies abuse patent monopolies to charge outrageous prices or otherwise keep lifesaving drugs out of reach for people around the world. For example, the Boston-based drug company Vertex is neither selling a transformative new treatment for cystic fibrosis in the developing world, nor allowing other local companies to produce it. Put simply, the company is not only refusing to bring a life-raft to people drowning with cystic fibrosis in poor countries, it is also blocking others from deploying their own life-rafts to people who need them to stay alive.
Second, far too often, the medicines that are desperately needed by millions of people in poor countries are not being produced by the pharmaceutical industry because the drug companies cannot make sufficient profits by doing so. In the US and other developed countries people often pay exorbitant prices for life-saving medicines. Poor people in developing countries can’t. They don’t have the money. The result: they die. Because the business model of the pharmaceutical industry values dollars gained over lives saved, there are not enough companies looking for transformative treatments, especially for diseases that afflict poor people.
Consider the case of tuberculosis (TB) – a disease that killed more than 1.3 million people in 2022, and is on the rise as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. The TB vaccine still used today is more than a hundred years old, and only protects young children, even though adolescents and adults account for the majority of TB transmission. The testing of a promising new publicly-funded TB vaccine that could potentially save millions of lives was delayed after its corporate owner, GSK, decided to focus on more profitable vaccines.
The scientist who brought GSK the idea of the TB vaccine decades ago now acknowledges that Big Pharma cannot deliver for developing countries. “You get a big company to take it forward? Bullshit,” he told ProPublica. “That model is gone. It’s failed. It’s dead. We have to create a new one.”
Clearly, we must do better. The life of a millionaire in New York City is not worth more than the life of a person living in extreme poverty in South Sudan.
Fundamentally, we need to transform how we pay for the development of new prescription drugs. This starts with funding open-source research, so lifesaving information is shared, and scientists around the world can work together to research and manufacture their own breakthroughs. Patents should not stand in the way of public health.
If we can provide $886bn to the Pentagon for military spending, we can provide scientists with the money they need to develop cutting-edge cures that are accessible to everyone.
People should not die because of their income or where they were born. We know what it will take to save lives. Now we must have the courage to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry. Let’s do it.
Bernie Sanders is a US Senator, and chairman of the health education labor and pensions committee. He represents the state of Vermont, and is the longestserving independent in the history of Congress
flict. Wars. Terrorism on both sides. Shoah and Nakba. Pogroms and “transfer”. And each side with leaders they would do better without. Benjamin Netanyahu and Ismail Haniyeh. Lions led by donkeys.
I immersed myself at an early age in the history of centuries of Jewish suffering. Expulsion from England in 1290, from Spain in 1492 alongside the Muslims. On and on until the ultimate destruction, before, finally, sanctuary arrived with the 1947 UN decision to partition Palestine and create a refuge for Holocaust survivors. In the UK, Labour’s conference had supported partition, especially the left. The Attlee government ignored the conference – some things don’t change. It resisted partition, pleading its duties as the mandate authority.
I do not accept the official narrative curiously shared by both Zionists and anti-Zionists that Israel was created because of a chain of events from Theodor Herzl’s inspiration through to Balfour’s declaration and the UN partition. It was driven more by guilt than principle: no one would take the Holocaust refugees, and there was no other option. To have the Holocaust now often thrust in your face by people on the left as a reason for your failure to have “the right line” on Israel (whatever that means) is hard to take.
In the 1960s, the left backed Israel. Aged 10 in 1967, I cut out news stories each day of the six-day war. In 1973, Israel, caught off guard by Egyptian and Syrian forces in the Yom Kippur war, was again the underdog, supported in Britain by the Labour opposition but not by the Heath government. The fact that Israel was still being attacked by its neighbours 25 years after it was established as a refuge for Holocaust survivors is the root of my sympathy for the Jews of Israel/Palestine, the people, but not necessarily for their government.
History itself is a weapon in the present. My generation remembers when Israel was led by the left and supported by the left elsewhere. My children’s generation see an Israel where there is not a sizeable left to speak of.
I might have no religious faith and I do not believe that the land was given to Jews by anyone other than the UN, but I celebrate the same festivals they do and eat the same food. I still feel an affinity I cannot explain.
There is no military solution to this conflict. But 7 million Jews and 7 million Palestinians are not going to go away. They need leaders who will work for peace, and bring Palestinians and Israelis together. There can be no role for those who want perpetual war.
Jon Lansman is a co-founder and former chair of Momentum
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.