• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
  • IPilogue
    Events
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

Likely Corruption in the Indian Health Care System

July 6, 2009 by Jasdeep Bal

Greetings from India! My name is Jasdeep Bal and I am one of two interns (the second being Nigel D’Souza) working for the People’s Patent Group (PPG) under the Human Rights Law Network (HRLN) in New Delhi, India. Let me start off by saying that India is a relatively new country, still recovering from the wounds of colonialism, and although all sorts of progressive and excellent laws are being formulated, there is a real problem in applying those laws. Corruption is seemingly rampant and many of the cases dealt with by the HRLN have to do with such issues. The HRLN employs public interest litigation (PIL) as their main legal weapon to combat issues of human rights abuse.

When I first arrived, I was immediately informed about a conference on the current issue concerning indigenous vaccine production. There is a case pending in which the government of India has shut down three plants producing indigenous vaccines, and handed out contracts to the private sector. According to the petition I read by HRLN, some of these plants are responsible for producing, for example, yellow fever vaccines—the only production facility for yellow fever in the Southeast. The government has been accused of orchestrating the shutdown on the pretext that the vaccine plants are not up to health standards. Furthermore, the PIL asserts that the government then appointed members to the board of the three plants, who then had the plants shut down, and allowed for the government to hand out private contracts. The PIL also asserts that many of the government officials involved have shares in private companies that will be receiving the contracts. What adds to the suspicion is that bringing the three plants up to a standard would cost the government significantly less than buying private sector vaccines. Unfortunately, it is the children that will suffer. Vaccines produced by the public sector units cost only Rs. 30 (less than $1) to vaccinate a child with all six essential vaccines for all of the required number of doses. The private sector, with their drug patents and more expensive combination vaccines (that are not considered essential by many experts) are threatening to increase the prices of vaccines they supply to the government. With 25million children born annually in India, huge profits can accrue to private companies who manage to get contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars to sell their vaccines to the government of India (private sector vaccines can be 2 to 20 times more expensive than indigenous vaccines). The PIL asks the court for an order to reopen the plants and for the creation of a commission of experts to investigate the matter. The case is in the Supreme Court of India.

My focus, however, will be the relation between patents on genetically modified (GM) seeds with India’s food security and the pandemic of farmer suicides. Without making my initial blog too long, I want to introduce this issue, because I will be researching this topic for the weeks to come. Briefly: Farmers are being sold ‘magic’ seeds that they are told do not require expensive pesticides. These seeds, sold primarily by Monsanto, contain terminator genes, which prevent the plants from producing viable seeds. The farmers are therefore required to purchase these expensive seeds year after year. When crop failures occur (which they do often), farmers are faced with insurmountable debt and, seeing no way out, take their own lives. There are also commentaries that these GM seeds are threatening the food security of India (but to tell you the truth, I am so far not convinced by the arguments), but more about that next time!

Posted in General, Patents, Pharmaceutical Drugs

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« “Reasonable Royalty Payments” In Need Of A Reform | Who Owns The Beatles’ Publishing Right: Easy as 123? »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • James Wagner on Copyright at the Edge of Artistic Creativity
  • Ken Anderson on Bill C-11: Through the Lens of Social Norms
  • Courtney Doagoo on Evidence Of Parasitic Intent Not Unfounded: L’Oreal
  • Denis Borges Barbosa on Evidence Of Parasitic Intent Not Unfounded: L’Oreal
  • D Vaver on Disclosure Front and Centre as Pfizer Prepares to Defend Viagra in Supreme Court of Canada
  • Dr. Emir Crowne on Disclosure Front and Centre as Pfizer Prepares to Defend Viagra in Supreme Court of Canada
  • Adam Stevenson on Bill C-11: Through the Lens of Social Norms
  • Anonymous on Should Canada Strengthen IP Protection for Pharmaceutical Products? The European Union Thinks So...
  • Aidan Hollis on Should Canada Strengthen IP Protection for Pharmaceutical Products? The European Union Thinks So...
  • Kalen Lumsden on IP Osgoode Speaker Series: Robert Levine and Dr. Brett Danaher
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • One Step Closer: Bill C-11
  • Bergeron Entrepreneurs in Science and Technology (BEST) Program Launches at York
  • Whose Patent is It Anyway?: The Ongoing Legal Legacy Between Samsung and Apple
  • Copyright at the Edge of Artistic Creativity
  • Luksan v. Van der Let, Or Rather, EU v. UrhG?
  • Global Health Challenges and the Role of Law
  • Sampling Questions Still Unsettled After Jay-Z/Kanye West Sampling Settlement
  • World Intellectual Property Day 2012
  • The Legal Implications of Commercializing Intellectual Property Rights
  • Announcement: Global Health Challenges and the Role of Law: the 2012 National Health Law Conference

IP Osgoode would like to send out its IPIGRAM at a time when most convenient for you. Please let us know your views by answering a few questions so that we can better serve you.

Click here to take poll.
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • Advisory Board (4)
  • Announcements (2)
  • Blogs (4)
  • Book Review (3)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (5)
  • Cloud Services (3)
  • Commercialization (77)
  • Competition (6)
  • Competition Law (7)
  • Contracts (59)
  • copyright reform (136)
  • defamation (15)
  • Design (6)
  • Development (4)
  • European Union (32)
  • events (75)
  • Fashion Industry (13)
  • Feature Post (126)
  • Freedom of Speech (15)
  • Freedom of the Press (14)
  • Gaming (6)
  • General (145)
  • Human Rights (3)
  • Image (2)
  • Innovation (138)
  • Internet (236)
  • IP (1041)
    • Copyright (522)
      • CD Levy (9)
      • Digital Downloads (64)
      • Digital Libraries (1)
      • Digital Locks (28)
      • Fair Dealing (61)
        • Parody (2)
        • Satire (1)
      • Infringement (124)
      • Internet Sharing (92)
      • Literary Works (52)
      • Moral Rights (9)
      • Movies (47)
      • Music Industry (88)
      • Originality (29)
      • Ownership (81)
        • Licensees (31)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (14)
      • Subsidiary Rights (5)
    • IP Reform (19)
    • Patents (331)
      • Access to Medicines (12)
      • Cross Border Issues (48)
      • Electronic Processes (18)
      • Infringement (60)
      • Patent Practice (18)
      • Patent Trolls (20)
      • Patentability (97)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (65)
    • Trademarks (201)
      • Domain Names (38)
      • Famous Marks (15)
      • Official Marks (10)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (11)
  • IP Course Topic (11)
  • IP Intensive (4)
  • IP Litigation Practice (15)
  • Jurisdiction (65)
    • Canada (24)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (1)
    • UK (25)
    • US (28)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (20)
  • Links (3)
  • MediaLaws (6)
  • Music Industry (72)
  • Open-Source (16)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (10)
  • Patents Course Topic (28)
  • Privacy (165)
    • Electronic Databases (36)
    • Human Rights Issues (26)
    • Identity Theft (11)
  • Regulatory Policy (46)
  • Reputation Management (2)
  • Smartphones (10)
  • Social Justice (2)
    • United Nations Development Programme (1)
  • Social Media (23)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (17)
  • Tech Transfer (29)
  • Technology (208)
  • Telecommunications (73)
  • Trade Secrets (3)
  • UK (10)
  • Uncategorized (82)
  • US-Canada Relations (2)
  • WIPO (9)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us  

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736