As many of you may know, malaria is often described as a “global health crisis” – the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that between 300-600 million people are currently infected with this illness. Additionally, malaria is a disease that really only impacts the poor and developing regions of the planet, in large part because a variety of medications are available to the developed world that can prevent and treat malaria. While these medications (such as quinine) are relatively inexpensive for us (just a few US dollars for a multi-drug cocktail), poverty-stricken regions still suffer from this deadly illness because they lack even the meager financial resources required to ward it off.
I came across this article on the ScienceDaily website and was quite angered that anyone could do such a heinous thing as produce and sell counterfeit malaria drugs in developing countries. This article certainly highlights an ugly side of science, medicine, and technology, while calling for more to be done to minimize this problem in the global community. From the article:
" 'The work of the Jupiter group highlights the need for more to be done internationally to support countries with a high prevalence of counterfeit anti-malarials in their attempts to combat this severe but under-recognised public health problem. Criminal investigations and legal action are important in disrupting and inhibiting the trade in fake medicines, but to be effective these will require financial support and resources,' says Dr Newton."
While I’m sure everyone would agree that fake drug trade ought to be “disrupted and inhibited,” there is much disagreement over how the global community could go about doing this. Is this a problem that should be addressed solely by “science,” or is this more of a “government” issue (maybe both)? Should the U.S. lead the way in such an effort or even be a part of it at all? Where will the “financial support and resources” that Dr. Newton claims are essential even come from? Thoughts?
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This was a very interesting thing to hear about, because truthfully I have not heard anything about counterfeit malaria drugs, nor was I truly aware of the prevalence of malaria. I think before we examine the question of whether this is a government or science issue, we should examine the problem from another issue. Unfortunately, it boils down to the issue of individual, and what kinds of choices each person. I remember a recent article detailing a Long Island (my home area) doctor who reused his needles, putting hundreds of patients at risk for HIV and hepatitis infections. I think the problem lies with universalism, or rather the lack there of. Because individuals are different, what happens in different parts of the world will ultimately be determined by the choices made by different individuals, assuming the resources are available (which in the case of malaria seems they are). So to answer the question of whether this is a government issue or a science issue, it is both. It is a science issue because everyone must have the knowledge in order to make the correct choices, and it is a government issue because not everyone will make the correct choice even if they have the knowledge.
As for the practicality of a solution, I really cannot say if there is a good one. For what it is worth, we cannot really control illegal drug trafficking in our own country, which leaves our abilities to control drugs in other countries in doubt. I do agree with Dr. Newton though: money is the key, not necessarily the personnel to hunt down traffickers. In fact, pumping money into places affected by malaria, such as Africa, would probably solve more than just this problem.
I also found this article very interesting because I have never heard nor thought about counterfeit malaria drugs, and yet I know quite a bit about malaria and have in fact coordinated fund raisers for malaria nets through Cornell Health International in collaboration with Cover Africa. After reading about this apparently large contamination of counterfeit drugs, I was taken aback because not only does this pose a prime opportunity for malaria to acquire resistance to what few drugs we have left that can combat the parasite, it gives people false hope in that they think they are receiving drugs that will combat Malaria, when in fact they may be receiving toxic chemicals. The situation reminded me of the situation in Hemen county in China, where corrupt government officials were selling blood from villagers, whom they paid or gave food to in exchange for their bodily fluids. The practice eventually led to the outbreak of AIDS in China—or at least contributed immensely to it. I’m not saying that the issue with counterfeit drugs is the government’s fault, but I think that it is at least partially the government’s responsibility to right the wrong, and make sure that it doesn’t happen again. Tighter regulations on the malaria drugs distributed need to be put into place, and the distribution certainly needs to be much more regulated so to prevent the evolution of a “super parasite” that we have no drugs, counterfeit or not, to battle it with. It’s no wonder that we can’t defeat this killer-of-millions; we’re not just battling the parasite, we’re battling immoral—and human—murderers.
I couldn't believe people would actually sell these counterfeit drugs. Not only are they swindling very poor people who need the correct medicine to live, they are compounding the problem by contributing to malaria resistance. As the article mentions, it is a matter that should be dealt with by the government, science, and public health communities. These important interactions show a sort of communalism that opens science up to other necessary entities in dealing with these kinds of problems.
The unfortunate thing about this story is that incidents like this probably happen all the time. It's a real rough world that we live in today, though we don't notice or hear about half of the problems because we are so caught up in our country that is THE world power. The US is so comfortable in our Westernized lifestyles of glits and glamour that we don't see the enormous problems plaguing our world. In these third world and underprivileged countries, drugs can be a way of life, as well as a means to life and death, so it is no surprise to me to hear a story like this. I can't really say it is our job to try and fix problems or prevent things like this drug scandal from happening, but we can always do something to help.
This is very interesting to hear about. But, it doesn't surprise me.
Less developed countries lack the institutions to enforce such a crime. Such as a food and drug administration or even a functioning police department. If the majority of the population cannot purchase or gain access to malaria drugs, then how will they test the medicine to see if it is the real drug. The problem is a much larger in scale. The prevalence of counterfeit malaria drugs are a consequence of the less developed state of countries. Perhaps a solution could include, international health organizations providing greater access to malaria drugs for the entire world. Not giving away the drugs away for free per se, but charging a subsidized price. Also, the organizations could give a portion of the profits to the clinic or hospital that carries the drug. This would give an incentive for health centers to stock malaria drugs and help ensure that the drug only goes to those who need it the most.
I found this very interesting because I had no idea how unregulated the drug supply was all over the world. I know that we have organizations such as the FDA and other control mechanisms that would most likely prevent such drugs from making it to the market. I think this also brings up the questions that if a country can not afford or does not have the resources to control the drug supply, should they take money from other programs and do this or just hope that it does not get contaminated? Some people argue that the control of the FDA makes it too hard to get drugs to the market, with such rigorous testing requirements thus keeping treatments from patients that could potentially be a last resort
Post a Comment