Slashdot Mirror
British Columbia Bows To Breast Cancer Patent
dlek writes "Bowing to pressure from Utah's Myriad Genetics, the government of British Columbia has stopped offering a test for hereditary breast cancer. The price of the test, which looks at two genes responsible for the cancer, has tripled to $3500US. Our public health care system can't afford to pay so we're sending people to Ontario, which is ignoring the patent. People are disappointed we're not doing the same... previous Slashdot mentions are on their original claim and on the Curie Institute's challenge to the patent."
Canada's pinko health system (which I refuse to live without) colliding with our grasping new capitalism (which I also refuse to live without - although I'm embarrassed by it...)
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
So what they patent the gene, I'm not copying it, or even using it (by choice), I'm just checking to see if it is there.
Since when is it a violation of a patent to see if the patented "invention" is located in a certain area?
Now if the patent is for a specific test to check for that gene, as opposed to the gene itself, that would make sense, but the articles seam not to point it that way.
I hope my government wises up and just disallows the patenting of preexisting 'inventions'
I wrote Larry Combest a few months ago complaining about the whole Berman thing. The form letter he sent back went on and on about how important intellectual property such as copyrighted media, trademarks, and PATENTS are to the economy, business, and corporate health of the nation.
Okay, Larry, Here's a real good example of how patents are HURTING health for our beer-loving neighbors to the north.
Yeah, we'll pay to bail out a company that's committed felonies, but we won't pay extra so that some poor woman can have protect her healthy by having breast-cancer screeings. Fuckwits.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
This is the kind of issue that cries for a flamatory public debate.
On one side, the right to cure and get cured at a reasonable cost or, even, any expense.
On the other, right right to maintain a certain cash flow from products who carry a usually very expensive R&D cycle.
Patents on medical products are a touchy subject.
I think the pharmaceutical world needs a new kind of patent protection system. Something that allows any company, by law, to produce the covered material by a patent, but forcing them to return some royalties for the duration of the patent.
In other words, legally allow copying of patented products but enforcing a royalty payment to the inventor of the product.
This way, big research companies can be assured that their investments are covered, and patients are assured they'd get access to the care they require.
hearah for canada where health care is pretty much free
It certainly isn't free, I'm in a ~40% tax bracket. Not all that goes to health care, of course, but a good chunk does.
Do I dislike the taxes? Yes. Would I want to lower taxes and go to a for-profit US-style system? Not on your life.
Trolling is a art,
I've been thinking twice now about donating money to HIV or breast cancer research. I think I've heard of many cases were people supported these programs but when the research was complete, a patent was assigned to the final product. The research that received our support is going to make someone billionaire. You guys are talking about Canada. Think about countries like India, Argentina, etc. These are countries that are in very bad shape. They can't afford paying the high cost of these treatments in US dollars. Is there any kind of law that prevents research programs that were supported by donations to patent their final program? Wouldn't it be considered unethical to say the least?
It would be nice to have a "special clause" added in the event of life saving techniques. For example, a person that may be labeled "high risk" would be able to have the testing done irregardless of the patent. However, if the population were to screened en masse, the patent would stand. I only agree with the patent issue so much as it furthers research and development, but it seems anything balanced against human life is a no brainer. Maybe the US is able to put a price tag on our lives, but I think other countries should ignore patents like this on the "right to life" platform.
Bill, can you factor this prime number for me?
cancer.
Fair is fair. They want the profits from testing for the gene, they should pay the costs if the gene ends up causing cancer in a patient.
What is really outrageous is that these jerks learned about the gene and how to test for it using PUBLIC tax monies, then they split into 'private' industry, file patents and start gouging - exploiting. This couldn't happen if some congressional pockets weren't being lined in the first place.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
So folk get all wound up about a US company exercising a patent right in a developed country that can afford to pay. This has been going on in Third world for twenty years with very little comment until the cost of AIDs drugs hit the news.
It is not just the people who will die because the western drug companies refuse to sell drugs at affordable prices. There is no guarantee that epidemics (AIDS is now a pandemic) will stay there and not cross to the developed world. Perhaps that is the drug co executives plan, Enron style to keep the diseases going so they can sell the drugs.
Of course the US is not above hypocrisy here. During the Anthrax scare Sen. Biden craftily proposed that the US seize the patent rights to cipro and mandate the production of generics. Congress quickly agreed. I have no doubt that Biden knew about the controversy over AIDS drugs and used the anthrax scare to deliberately cut the legs out from under the drug companies claims just before a crucial conference.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
If they had just patented a method of detecting the gene it would not be so much of a problem, but they have patented the gene itself and its genetic mutation. This is as bad as business method patents or patents on numbers (numbers, not ways of generating the numbers there is a big difference) and in some ways is much worse because it negetivly effects the health of a potential 51% of British Columbias population.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
From one perspective, this test wasn't available a few years ago. A company spent the money and time to make it available, and now they want a return on their investment.
The question I'd want to ask is: how much of that research was funded by grants, federal, governmental or otherwise? I don't really know, but I'd like to know. If any significant fraction was funded by grants, then the patent is "corporate welfare" in its most evil form.
I've heard the assertion made that some large fraction of the "important" drugs have been developed partially or largely under grant support. (I.e., not the latest wrinkle on an effective allergy medicine, but the new breakthroughs, AIDS drugs, etc.) I'd like to see some documentation of this. If it is true, then it really is a crime that patents are being given out to the companies that took these grants to help do the research that pays for the patents.
I know I will get flamed by a lot of people saying that I'm trying to kill the spirit of Amercian innovation and squelch off just the thing that allowed all these drugs to be developed in the first place-- because I've been flamed for that before. I don't know that I do have the answers. But I also reject the flat-out assertion that under no system than the current patent system would we be able to have a vigorous program of innovation in pharmaceutical research. It is plain that the current system is horribly broken (unless you're heavily invested in pharmaceutical companies and are more concerned with your portfolio than with what the research is really supposed to be for). It is downright foolish to refuse to ask how we might be able to fix that system simply because we're afraid that we could end up breaking it worse.
-Rob
How about a compromise? Any researcher finding a mechanism of disease inherent within a genetic sequence can patent the sequence and receive no more than $100 per test for the diseased genes.
Or, if that amount is too low for some of the more esoteric diseases (which will not be often tested), how about a sliding scale?
We should have some legislative mechanism in place to reduce the maximum payout per test as the number of tests performed rises.
It is absolutely unreasonable to grant an exclusive patent on my genetic function (and I assume that men carry this gene sequence as well, even if it is inactive) without my personal consent. If the drug companies refuse to compromise on this issue, then they should expect wholesale disregard for their patents, as is proving to be the case.
didn't you understand?> So my question is, is this totally a patent issue?
What part of
> Instead, is this problem a little bit of both. A jacked-up patent royalties to recoup R&D, and a brand of health care system stressed because of its communal nature?
That's it, blame it on the socialists.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Actually, as I understand it, drugs are one of the major expenditures in any healthcare system, including Canada's. The fact is, people with serious illnesses can incur many thousands of dollars per year on drugs alone. Of course, this is where generics would come to the rescue, but, as we've seen, with patent life extending and companies finding loopholes in patent law, this isn't fool proof, AND forces people who can't afford new drugs to be ten years behind the times in disease treatment.
I might say things here that some will take as Flamebait, but I don't care.
I'd care a whole lot more about the Third-World vs. Drug Patents issue if a couple things were being done.
1. The countries bitching about the AIDS drugs actually worked to combat HIV, some of them don't think HIV causes AIDS, thus they don't try and combat the issues that are leading to the spread of HIV.
2. There is nothing in the US Constitution, Bible, Koran or Book of Scientology that says BMS, Pifzer, Bayer, or Wal-mat have to sell drugs at a price that is affordable in (Insert Country) just because thier government has crappy money policy.
Finally, the Anthrax issue and HIV/AIDS patents are two different things. Lets say there was an Anthrax attack on the US, in that case antibiotics like Cipro become a Strategic Drug. When it looked like Bayer was holding back on production to get the price up in fall of 2001, Congress acted because of that possible immediate requirement. How can one compare the possible need of 100,00-10,000,000 doses of a drug that is produced in Europe and must be had ASAP to a drug that is much less time sensitive? What happens if something happened to Bayer's production facilities? What if something happened to the transports bringing it in?
AIDS in the Third World was a completely controlable issue, but now it's out of the Box and still some Governments refuse to treat it like it should be treated, yet they want to unleash cheap AIDS drugs. Why produce HIV/AIDS drugs and hand them out when the government states publicly that HIV doesn't cause AIDS? To me it sounds like a Patent grab attempt, but a nation like Zimbabwe would never attempt a grab for the good of the ruling party would they?
Is there anything wrong with patenting something that could save people's lives? No. The purpose of patents is to promote invention by giving inventors an incentive in the form of a "head start," before their idea becomes public domain.
I see two real problems here: A patent system that allows someone to claim a patent on something they didn't invent (a gene), and parties that will abuse the system for unethical gain.
$3000 may sound like a lot of money (to me it certainly is). However, it may be the minimum amount necessary to for the inventor to recoup the costs associated with developing his invention (and thus justify its development in the first place). Whatever the price, though, if it is set too high, then consumers (whether they're governments, insurance companies, or individual patients) will consume less. If it's too low, there will be shortages. As much as many of us would wish otherwise, the laws of economics apply to medicine just as in every other field.
Which elected official or organization should I contact to rant about this. This is the most terrifying use of a patent I have ever heard of.
>> Baloney. Basic genetic research is carried out mostly using public funds.
Basic research, yes, drug development no. It costs $100mm to bring the average drug through FDA clinicals, and 9 of 10 of these drugs never make it to market. Universities do not have the capital structure to fund these sorts of projects and do not (directly) create products that help people.
that investigates the occurance of said genes in the
BC population. It could be funded by the health services.
Patents cannot prevent research use.
They could also provide the patients with an opportunity to do the tests themselves. Although that is less feasible.
Patents cannot restrict private use.
***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***