Keywords
Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights
International Cooperation
Solidarity
Sharing of Benefits
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17566/ciads.v10i3.786How to Cite
Abstract
This paper aims to analyze the right to access the benefits of scientific and technological development, using the vaccines against COVID-19 as a study case. The text is methodologically supported by articles in the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (DBHR) that have a direct relationship with the proposed situation. The study begins with the presentation of the DUBDH and a brief history of its basic assumptions. Based on Articles 21 and 24, which deal respectively with Transnational Practices and International Cooperation, the reflection indicates recent significant changes in relation to the universality of access to health, replaced in the instances of the World Health Organization (WHO) and World Bank for the proposal of universal health coverage, with a very different meaning and scope. Based on Article 13 of the DUBDH, which deals with Solidarity and Cooperation, the text defends the concept of cooperative solidarity, based on the classic bilateral conception of solidarity as help from rich countries to others most in need, although this possibility is with frequency replaced by situations of the so-called exploratory solidarity. Finally, based on Article 15, which deals with Sharing of Benefits – central to the present study – a comparative analysis is presented between: a) historical facts related to the permission to break patents within the scope of the World Trade Organization (WTO) that enabled broad access to antiretroviral therapies to control HIV/AIDS; and b) facts that have happened since 2020 with the COVID-19 pandemic regarding the right of access to vaccines.
References
Organização das Nações Unidas para a Educação, a Ciência e a Cultura (UNESCO). Declaração Universal sobre o Genoma Humano e os Direitos Humanos. Paris; 1997.
Organização das Nações Unidas para a Educação, a Ciência e a Cultura (UNESCO). Declaração Internacional sobre os dados Genéticos Humanos. Paris; 2003.
Organização das Nações Unidas para a Educação, a Ciência e a Cultura (UNESCO). Declaração Universal sobre Bioética e Direitos Humanos. 2005 [citado em 20 nov. 2020]. Disponível em: http://bioetica.catedraunesco.unb.br/?page_id=250
Gros-Espiell H. La Declaración Universal sobre Bioética y derechos Humanos de La UNESCO y la Declaración de Santo Domingo sobre Bioética y Derechos Humanos. Revista Brasileira de Bioética. 2007;3(1):07-13.
Reubi D. The promise of human rights for global health: A programmed deception? A commentary on Schrecker, Chapman, Labonté and De Vogli;2010. Advancing health equity in the global market place: How human rights can help. Social Science & Medicine. 2011; 73(5):625-628.
Koplan JP, Bond TC, Merson MH, Reddy KS, Rodriguez MH, Sewankambo NK, Wasserheit JN. Towards a common definition of global health. Lancet. 2009; 373(9679):1993-1995.
Evans T. A human right to health? Third World Quarterly. 2002; 23(2):197-215.
Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU). Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos. Genebra; 1948 [citado em 20 nov. 2020]. Disponível em: http://www.un.org/es/documents/udhr/
Potter VR. Bioethics: the science of survival. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 1970;14:127-153.
Potter VR. Bioethics: bridge to the future. New Jersey, USA: Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs; 1971.
Santana JP, Garrafa V. Cooperação em saúde na perspectiva bioética. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva. 2013; 8(1):129-136.
Solbakk J. Can we trust the public health authorities? Vaccine skepticism can no longer be rejected as a conspiracy theory. Oslo: Diario, Morgenbladet; 18 junio 2010.
Manchola-Castillo C, Garrafa V, Cunha T, Hellmann F. El acceso a la salud como derecho humano en políticas internacionales: reflexiones críticas y desafíos contemporaneos. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva. 2017; 22(7):2151-2160.
Van Olmen J, Marchal B, Van Damme W, Kegels G, Hill PS. Health systems frameworks in their political context: framing divergent agendas. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:774.
Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS). Monitoring progress towards universal health coverage at country and global levels. Framework, measures and targets. Geneva: OMS; 2014. WHO/HIS/HIA/14.1.
Stuckler D, Basu S, McKee M. Global health philanthropy and institutional relationships: how should conflicts of interest be addressed? PLoS Medicine. 2011:8(4):e1001020.
Nuruzzaman M. Health policy reforms and the poor in the global South. Canadian Presented at the Political Science Association Annual Conference, London, Ontario, Canada; 2005.
Rockefeller Foundation, Word Bank, World Health Organization. 500+ Organizations Launch Global Coalition to Accelerate Access to Universal Health Coverage. December 12, 2014 [citado em 4 abr. 2017]. Disponível em: http:// www.who.int/universal_health_coverage/universal-health-coverage-access-pr-20141212.pdf?ua=1
Noronha JC. Universal health coverage: how to mix concepts, confuse objectives, and abandon principles. Cadernos de Saúde Pública. 2013;29(5):847–849.
Fox AM, Meier BM. Health As Freedom: Addressing Social Determinants Of Global Health Inequities Through The Human Right To Development. Bioethics. 2009; 23(2):112-122.
Garrafa V, Cunha TR, Manchola C. Access to healthcare - a central question within Brazilian bioethics. Cambridge Quarterly Healthcare Ethics. 2018; 27: 431-439.
Yudhoyono SB, Sirleaf EJ, Cameron D, coordinators. High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post2015 Development Agenda. A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies Through Sustainable Development. The Report of the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post2015 Development Agenda. New York: United Nations; 2013.
Evans DB, Hsu J, Boerma T. Universal health coverage and universal access (editorial). Bull World Health Organ. 2013;91(8):546-546A.
Garrafa V. Solidarity and Cooperation In: Ten Have H, Gordijn B. (eds.). Compendium and Atlas of Global Bioethics. New York, London: Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg; 2013. p. 169-186.
Rocha RS. O princípio da solidariedade: uma abordagem sociológica. Revista da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade Federal de Uberlândia - UFU. 2011;39(1):229-243.
Caponi S. Da compaixão à solidariedade – uma genealogía da assistência médica. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Fiocruz; 2000.
Freire P. Pedagogia da autonomia. São Paulo: Paz e Terra; 2002.
Garrafa V, Solbakk JH, Vidal S, Lorenzo C. Between the needy and the greedy: the quest for a just and fair ethics of clinical research. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2010;36(8):500-504.
Velasquez G. Unhealthy profits – drugs shoul be a common good. Le Monde Diplomatique - English edition ; July 2003.
Velásquez G, Boulet P. Mondialisation et accès aux médicaments. Perspectives sur l’accord ADPIC de l’OMC. Genebra: Organização Mundial da Saúde; 1999.
Oliveira MF, Moreno FV. Negociações comerciais internacionais e democracia: o contencioso Brasil x EUA das patentes farmacêuticas na OMC. Dados. Instituto de Estudos Sociais e Políticos (IESP) da Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ). 2007; 50(1):189-220. Disponível em: http://hdl.handle.net/11449/10590
World Trade Organization (WTO). Notification of Mutually Agreed Solution on DSS199. Brazil – Measures Affecting Patent Protection. 2001 [citado em 15 jan. 2021]. Disponível em: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/IP/D/23A1.pdf&Open=True
World Trade Organization (WTO). Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health. 2001 [citado em 15 mar. 2021]. Disponível em: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_trips_e.htm
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). TRIPS and Health Emergencies. 2001a [citado em 15 mar. 2021]. Disponível em: https://ustr.gov/archive/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2001/November/TRIPs_Health_Emergencies.html
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). United States and Brazil Agree to Use Newly Created Consultative Mechanism to Promote Cooperation on HIV/AIDS and Address WTO Patent Dispute. Washington D.C.; 25/06/2001.
Singh K. Anthrax, Drug Transnationals and TRIPS. Foreign Policy in Focus, 01/04/2021. [citado em 15 mar. 2021]. Disponível em: https://ips-dc.org/anthrax_drug_transnationals_and_trips/
OMC volta a discutir suspensão de patentes de vacinas contra Covid-19 e Brasil mantém posição contrária. Rio de Janeiro: O Globo; 09/03/2021.
U.S. Mission Geneva. U.S. explanation of position “COVID-19 response” Resolution. Washington, May 19th 2020 [citado em 15 mar. 2021]. Disponível em: https://geneva.usmission.gov/2020/05/19/explanation-of-position-covid-19-response-resolution/
World Health Organization (WHO). Resolution WHA73.1 on Covid Response. Geneva, Switzerland, May 19th 2020. [citado em 15 mar. 2021]. Disponível em: https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA73/A73_R1-en.pdf
Carvalhaes C. Trabalhadores, uni-vos. São Paulo: Carta Capital, 10/03/2021;1147:46-49.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2021 Volnei Garrafa, Monique Pyrrho (Autor)