Analysis of Global Campaign Started by Médecins Sans Frontières

1898 Words4 Pages

The purpose of this paper is to examine a six-year global campaign started by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) in 2006, to seek public understanding on the importance of generic life-saving medicines in developing countries, and to challenge Norvartis pharmaceutical company to drop its patent case against India. This paper seeks to investigate the campaign’s objectives, adopted tactics and results, to answer the questions How did MSF approach its diverse publics? and Was this campaign a success?

Within the scope of Aristotle’s rhetorical theory and Freeman’s stakeholder theory, this paper aims to draw conclusions to the above questions and set forth recommendations to be considered for MSF’s later, related campaigns.

Situation analysis

India has been known as the main supplier of essential medicines for developing countries, for it produces generic medicines, which are inexpensive in price, but still maintain high quality standards, and exports to all over the world. 67% of the medicines exported are purchased by the non-governmental organization (NGO), such as MSF or UNICEF, to treat the needing poor, or by the health programs in many developing countries (WHO, 2004). For HIV medicines, India is among the few countries in the world that are capable of making new medicines as generics (Médecins Sans Frontières, 2007). Therefore, many AIDS programs, including those of MSF, use India as the primary source for medical products.

The reason India became the key producer of cheap medicines is until 2005, India did not grant patents for pharmaceutical companies, allowing generic manufacturers to produce more affordable medicines which are patented elsewhere. The situation changed in 2005, when India joined World Trade Organization...

... middle of paper ...

...does not have direct impact on Novartis. On the other hand, within the more important stakeholders, only a minor part of Novartis’ shareholders and politicians from developed countries joined the campaign, while the others might have a conflict of interests or see a better opportunity in maintaining the high standards for the drugs.

Conclusion

Even though hailed victory by the campaign organizers and participants, the conflict was not over. Many subsequent campaigns of MSF are still challenging this patent issue with a number of multinational pharmaceutical companies. All of them use similar tactics to those of “Drop the case,” and over a long period of time, some companies agreed to join MSF’s patent pool, while others (including Novartis) still keep their grounds. The fight still goes on. Whether the final victor is patients or patent has yet been determined.

Open Document