This article critically examines current responses to multi-drug resistant tuberculosis and argues that bioethics needs to be willing to engage in a more radical critique of the problem than is currently offered. In particular, we need to focus not simply on market-driven models of innovation and anti-microbial solutions to emergent and re-emergent infections such as TB. The global community also needs to address poverty and the structural factors that entrench inequalities—thus moving beyond the orthodox medical/public health frame of reference.

Thomas Pogge proposes the Health Impact Fund (HIF) as a realistic, feasible reform to the pharmaceutical patent regime that would incentivize pharmaceutical research and reward innovation for medicines based on their impact on the global burden of disease. Pogge advances a human rights-based argument to show that the HIF is a morally required addition to the current pharmaceutical patent regime. One objection to his human rights argument comes from a libertarian appeal to property rights. Pogge’s response to the libertarian leads (...) to the counterintuitive conclusion that libertarianism is incompatible with any system of intellectual property rights. This paper will show how Pogge fails to distinguish between what I call status quo and revisionist libertarian positions on intellectual property. Making this distinction, I maintain, would strengthen the human rights argument and allow Pogge to avoid the counterintuitive conclusion of his response to the libertarian. (shrink)

Diese Arbeit untersucht die Frage, ob der aktuelle Schutz des geistigen Eigentums bei Arzneimitteln in Deutschland moralisch zu rechtfertigen ist. Die Untersuchung orientiert sich dabei am aktuellen Diskurs und ordnet die bestehenden Positionen entsprechend ihrer Abstraktheit. Dabei bilden Argumente gegen einen Schutz geistigen Eigentums die allgemeinste Ebene, und Argumente, die sich spezifisch gegen deutsche Arzneimittelpatente richten, die konkreteste Ebene. Ich werde zeigen, dass starke deontologische und konsequentialistische Positionen existieren, welche die realpolitischen Auswirkungen von Arzneimittelpatenten kritisieren. Die konsequentialistische Position argumentiert in (...) erster Linie mit den jüngsten Wirtschaftsdaten, während die deontologische Position die bürgerlichen Autonomieansprüche betont. (shrink)