Access to Medicines and the Rhetoric of Responsibility

Bibliographic Data

ID12159737
AuthorsChristian Barry (0000-0001-7503-8191, Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, corresponding author), Kate Raworth (Overseas Development Institute)
Year2002
Volume16
Issue2
Pages57-70
Publication date2002-09-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueEthics & International Affairs (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0892-6794 • E-ISSN: 1747-7093
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1111/j.1747-7093.2002.tb00397.x
PMID15709279
OpenAlexW1965053401
LanguageEN
Citations received9
References cited12

There is no cure or vaccine for HIV/AIDS. The only life-prolonging treatment available is antiretroviral (ARV) therapy. WHO estimates, however, that less than 5 percent of those who require treatment in developing countries currently enjoy access to these medicines. In Africa fewer than 50,000 people–less than 2 percent of the people in need–currently receive ARV therapy. These facts have elicited strongly divergent reactions, and views about the appropriate response to this crisis have varied widely. The intensity of the debate concerning access to life-prolonging medicines for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, and the heated rhetoric with which they are often conducted, suggest that these disagreements may be rooted in deeper disagreements of value. It is not obvious, however, what disagreements of value are at stake in this debate. By analyzing the statements of scholars, public officials, activist organizations, and private sector representatives, each of whom may endorse very different policy recommendations on access to HIV/AIDS drugs, we have identified and created a typology of the different sources of disagreement in the debate. We conclude that the central disagreements concerning access to medicines arise from competing understandings of how responsibilities for bringing remedy to hardships should be allocated to different agents and institutions. A central lesson that emerges from our analysis is that thinking about “health equity” must extend beyond the explanation and justification of goals, values, and ideals, and engage more honestly with the difficult question of how responsibilities for bringing remedy to health crises should be allocated in complex social contexts

Access to medicines · Equity (law · Family medicine · Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV · Political science · Private sector · Public health · Public relations · Rhetoric · Sociology · Typology · Value (mathematics · Global Maternal and Child Health · Human Rights and Development · Law · Medicine · Nursing · Poverty, Education, and Child Welfare

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub