Should patents for antiretrovirals be waived in the developing world? Annual varsity medical debate - London, 21 January 2011

After the success of the 2010 Varsity Medical Debate [1], the Third Varsity Medical Debate between Cambridge and Oxford Universities took place on Friday 21st January 2011, hosted by the Royal College of General Practitioners. A prestigious panel of judges, including Dr. Iona Heath, the President of the College, oversaw the motion "This House would waive patents for anti-retroviral therapies in the developing world." The motion was proposed by Cambridge and opposed by Oxford.There are estimated to be 29.5 million people infected by Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in low- and middle-income countries with only 5.3 million of those being treated [2,3]. The effective and equitable distribution of anti-retroviral therapy (ART) to combat Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is consequently of great importance. Furthermore, agonies over resource distribution have been aggravated by the current global economic climate, which has resulted in a reduction in aid available for the provision of anti-retroviral therapy. While not representing a cure, treatment with ARTs means that AIDS becomes a chronic disease, extending life by decades. The United Nations were unequivocal in the urgent imperative that this problem be tackled, stating in Millennium Development Goal 6B that we must "achieve, by 2010, universal access to treatment for HIV/AIDS for all those who need it" [4]. Tragically, the rate of new infections continues to vastly outstrip the provision of treatment, and the countries facing the heaviest burden of disease are also those with the fewest resources available to tackle the problem. The debate questioned whether a patent waiver would address this shortfall of healthcare provision in developing countries.This report will summarise the arguments of Cambridge University's team in favour of waiving patents for anti-retroviral therapies and the differing analysis of Oxford University's team suggesting that this is not the first necessary step.Cambridge University