Fairness and Access: The Ethics of Patenting Life-Saving Medications (Research Paper Sample)

Fairness and Access: The Ethics of Patenting Life-Saving Medications Whether pharmaceutical companies should maintain patent rights on life-saving medications is a question that balances ethics, economics, and global justice. Patents give companies exclusive rights to make and sell drugs for a finite period, a system that is justified as essential to rewarding innovation. But their role in perpetuating health inequities — especially in low-income countries — merits critical scrutiny. While patents drive medical advancements, their unchecked application often transforms essential treatments into unaffordable commodities, forcing societies to confront the moral responsibilities of corporations and governments. Proponents argue that pharmaceutical patents are indispensable for medical progress. Developing a new drug requires an average investment of $2.6 billion and over a decade of research, with a high risk of failure (World Health Organization 14). Patents allow companies to recoup these costs, funding future breakthroughs. HIV antiretroviral therapies (ARTs), for instance, were developed in the protection of patents in the 1990s and transformed the treatment of AIDS, decreasing mortality by 80% in high-income countries (Love and Hubbard 89). As with COVID- 19 vaccines, their rapid development was partly a product of profit-based partnerships between pharmaceutical giants and governments (Angell 45). Without patent systems, critics warn, companies might abandon research on rare or complex diseases, leaving millions without hope for cures. Yet the human cost of this system is staggering. Patent monopolies enable companies to price medications far above production costs, excluding vulnerable populations from life- saving care. In sub-Saharan Africa, patented HIV drugs initially cost 10,000 per patient annually, leading to catastrophic mortality rates until generic alternatives slashed prices to affordable levels 100 per year (’t Hoen 112). In the United States, Gilead Sciences priced its hepatitis C cure, Sovaldi, at $84,000 for a 12-week course—a markup of 300 times its manufacturing cost— delaying treatment for nearly 70% of infected Americans (Love and Hubbard 93). Such pricing models contradict the World Health Organization’s assertion that healthcare is a universal human right, as patents effectively ration care based on wealth (World Health Organization 21). The problem extends beyond pricing. Tactics like “evergreening”—minor modifications to extend patent terms—artificially prolong monopolies. Insulin, discovered a century ago, remains prohibitively expensive due to incremental tweaks that justify new patents, despite no significant improvements in efficacy (Angell 67). Likewise, pharmaceutical lobbying has tailored agreements such as the World Trade Organization’s TRIPS Agreement, which prioritizes corporate profits over public health. While TRIPS does allow for compulsory licensing to override patents in times of crisis, developing countries face political pressures preventing them from invoking this provision, while diseases like tuberculosis continue to kill 1.5 million people a year (’t Hoen 124). Reforming this system requires balancing innovation with equity. Tiered ...