Ate Glue is right about affordable drugs

If there is one program of Ate Glue that I truly support, it has to be the affordable prescription drugs program being implemented by Obet Pagdanganan. While I understand the need for drug companies to make a decent return so that they can continually research tomorrow’s drugs, there is also a need for them to be reasonable and humanitarian, specially for developing countries.

Why, for instance, must Pfizer in India sell Norvasc, a high blood pressure medicine that many other Filipinos must take daily, at P5.98 per 5 mg tablet and P8.96 per 10 mg tablet and sell the exact same drug here at P44.75 per 5 mg tablet and P74.57 per 10 mg tablet? And this is not fake either, since the Indian Norvasc is also manufactured by Pfizer. In other words, Norvasc is sold in the Philippines at prices 650 percent to 750 percent higher than those in India. Is it because the Indians wouldn’t stand for price gouging and we are such pushovers?

Actually, even Americans in the United States are up in arms. Poor American retirees who are dependent on Medicare and other health insurance programs must pay through the nose for prescription drugs made in America compared to what their cousins in Canada are paying for the exact same thing. This is why there is a prolific cross border trade in prescription drugs that was even parodied in last Sunday’s episode of "The Simpsons" aired on Star TV. This is called parallel importing and the drug companies hate it.

Obviously, Canada’s price control law is effectively making prescription drug prices reasonable. The pharmaceutical drug lobby in Washington DC is, however, terribly powerful so that poor Americans are no better than poor Filipinos when it comes to obtaining the kind of medicines they need to keep themselves healthy. Life expectancy is sacrificed on the altar of corporate greed.

Obet Pagdanganan wants to amend the Intellectual Property Code so health authorities can conduct tests on medicines whose patents are expiring to lower the prices of drugs in the country. Obet is supporting the proposed bill filed by Sen. Mar Roxas that would amend the code in such a way as to complement the government’s parallel importation program. This will help make health-care goods and services available at affordable prices.

That sounds reasonable to me. We are not talking of breaking the patents of drugs. We are talking of being able to produce or import drugs whose patents have already expired. There should be no reason why people shouldn’t have immediate access to generic medicines in the local market once a drug’s patent expires.

Obet wants to be allowed to start testing the generic equivalent of those drugs whose patents are about to expire a year or so before that happens. The patent laws in several countries allow the development, testing and experimental work for the registration of a generic medicine during the patent period of the original product. But the local code isn’t explicit about it.  

I think passing the Mar Roxas bill is a more urgent life and death matter for Filipinos than the cha cha. Our political leaders must bear in mind that it is the responsibility of government to make health care goods and services available at affordable costs. The WHO agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the 2001 Doha Declaration recognize the primacy of national interest and public health.

But then again, our politicians obviously have a different life and death set of priorities: Political survival or worse, the interests of lobbyists.

Ateneo

I got this response from Paulo Francisco A. Agustin, an Ateneo graduate to my column last Friday.

I have read your article expressing your opinion regarding the current state of Ateneo education brought about by your reflection during the graduation ceremony last Friday. While I do agree with some of the points that were raised in your article, particularly the problem regarding the monoculture of the rich within the school, the synthesis of technical knowledge and philosophical thought that is the hallmark of Jesuit instruction which makes it valuable, and your final assertion that an Ateneo education is worth it "only if the graduate recognizes its intrinsic value and does something about it in his life," I have to take offense with the way your article disparages the character, accomplishments, and intentions of Mr. Phillip Francisco U. Dy, the class valedictorian of batch 2006.

It is obvious with this comment "I suspect he would take on a career as a politician, end up as a member of Congress (or parliament) and feel right at home trying to sound important but saying nothing," from your article that you are not well-acquainted with Mr. Dy or ‘Boyet’ as he is known to most of his batch mates and the student population.

Further inquiry into his person would have revealed that ‘Boyet’ is perhaps the closest to the ‘person-for-others’ ideal that the Jesuits have tried to instill within Ateneo students and alumni, rather than your implied accusation from the comment above that he is a selfish, duplicitous and ineffectual politician, or that he will become one in the foreseeable future. As his batch mate and former high school classmate, I can attest that the man does not lead so much as serve others.

His course, Developmental Studies, is all about service because it aims to address the problems plaguing the country through the synthesis economic, social, and political theory. His tenure as Sanggu president is marked by his giving his best to the student body. As his numerous other deeds will attest to, he is a man of integrity and character.

If you are basing your impression of Mr. Dy from his valedictory address, I will concede that indeed it was full of platitudes and that it was a tad too long, however I do not agree with your opinion that it was not thought-provoking nor inspirational. I certainly do not agree that the "persons-for-others" ideal of the Jesuits was not present in his speech.

Boyet discussed some of the fears and concerns that were pertinent to him and us, his fellow graduates, and in doing so strived to instill a sense of hope and purpose to his listeners to alleviate the undercurrent of despair and uncertainty that pervades the world we will enter into as we "come down from the hill". I believe that it was his intent for us to realize, no matter how cliché it may be, that indeed WE are the hope of this country, of the future, and that being blessed with such a fine Ateneo education behooves us to bring and share and fulfill that hope with others, whether they are part of the rich monoculture of the school, or the poor and downtrodden which characterizes the milieu of Philippine society of which we are part of. If that is not within the context of being "persons-for-others" then I have to ask, what is then?

I do not know how sincere you are with your negative opinion regarding my friend; however I have to respectfully state my opinion, and I believe the opinion of many others in our batch, that you will be proven wrong.

Actually, I rather enjoyed the exchange I had with a number of this year’s graduates who wrote well thought out rejoinders to my column, with the exception of two or three rather incoherent angry notes. They all expressed how hurt they were by what I wrote even as some of them acknowledged that I did have some valid points.

Their main message was, I was too harsh to write what I did about the valedictory speech and to judge the valedictorian on the basis of just one speech. They pointed out that he was a good student leader and is an example precisely of the Atenean man for others that I was looking for. And while I may not have found him inspiring, they thought he was.

Points well taken. There was no intention on my part to disparage anyone, least of all someone I do not even know. It was an honest reaction to a public speech. I may have had unreasonable expectations from someone who was being presented as the top Ateneo graduate that afternoon. But I was wrong to rush to judgment. For that, I expressed my apology to all those who wrote me and am again doing so now to everyone else who might have been offended.

Then again, one of the good things that came out of the whole thing is that I provoked a good number of them to think and communicate and I was not disappointed. Thanks to the magic of the Intenet, I was able to exchange views with them. My thoughts on the quality of an Ateneo education, which I emphasized in my column, were proven once again.

Universal wish

Now, here’s Dr. Ernie E.

A woman was determined to get her newly-retired husband some attractive leisure clothes. She went into a men’s clothing store and told the salesgirl, "I’m looking for something youthful, something wild in a man’s pair of slacks."

"Oh," sighed the salesgirl. "Aren’t we all?"

Boo Chanco’s email address is [email protected]