The mortality rates of pregnant women in developing countries is still on the rise, a United Nations report issued on Friday said. More than half a million women die in pregnancy or childbirth each year, a little change from 20 years ago, the report said.
And 20 million unsafe abortions, a major factor in maternal deaths and illness, are done annually. The number of deaths is being reduced too slowly to achieve United Nations-set goals set by the Millennium Development Goals.
If no action is taken, a key global target of 75 percent reduction in maternal deaths by 2015 will not be met, the health agency has warned.
According to the report compiled by the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and Population Fund (UNFPA), and the World Bank, 536,000 women died of maternal causes in 2005 compared to 576,000 in 1990.
Ninety-nine percent of the deaths occurred in developing countries; it said adding that several causes are responsible for deaths including poverty, hunger and disease.
AFP reports that Millennium Development Goal number five calls for the maternal mortality ratio, the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, to be cut by 5.5 percent a year until 2015.
The maternal mortality rate was disproportionately high in developing nations, where there were "450 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. This is in great contrast to nine in developed regions," the report said.
"Slightly more than one half of the maternal deaths (270,000) occurred in the sub-Saharan Africa region, followed by South Asia (188,000). Together, these two regions accounted for 86 per cent of the world's maternal deaths in 2005," it said.
According to WHO reports, the number of women dying in childbirth varies dramatically worldwide from one in eight in Afghanistan and Sierra Leone to one in 47,000 in Ireland.
Tuesday, 29 January 2008
Malnutrition, an ugly reality of modern India
Malnutrition, an ugly reality of modern India
Hungry and helpless — malnutrition is still one ugly reality of modern day India and it seems as if things are not about to get better anytime soon.
The third round of the National Family Health Survey carries a shocking report that over past six years, malnutrition in the country for children below three years has gone down by only 1 per cent.
This along with a UNICEF report shows that India has the highest rate of malnutrition in the world today.
"Not having enough of food can cause a lot of deficiency by way of macro-nutrients like carbohydrates, fats and proteins or even micro-nutrients like zinc, iron and magnesium," says Paediatrician, Max Healthcare, Dr Indra Vij.
One reason as per the Ministry of Women and Child Development is that no special budget was allocated for the malnutrition problem until 2004-2005. The Centre has also been laidback in providing supplement nutrition to the affected states.
Finally more attention has been given to increasing coverage area then ensuring better distribution. End result — today about 60 million children below five are underweight.
"You would find that the child does not grow according to his age. His nervous and general development may also be stunted," says Dr Vij.
In Arunachal Pradesh, malnutrition rate has increased by as much as 12 per cent followed by 8 per cent in Meghalaya, 7 per cent in Haryana and 6 per cent in Madhya Pradesh.
The Madhya Pradesh government has now launched project 'Shaktimaan' supported by the UNICEF to reduce malnutrition and spread health awareness, but one can find simpler solutions at home.
"Whatever food is available to people in rural area, even if it's just rice and daal, should be eaten. They can pick up any green vegetables and eat them. One can also ferment or par-boil foods," says Dr Vij.
Hungry Kya is one fun slogan that urban India is well familiar with. But in a country where so many children are hungry, this perhaps becomes a little ironical.
Hungry and helpless — malnutrition is still one ugly reality of modern day India and it seems as if things are not about to get better anytime soon.
The third round of the National Family Health Survey carries a shocking report that over past six years, malnutrition in the country for children below three years has gone down by only 1 per cent.
This along with a UNICEF report shows that India has the highest rate of malnutrition in the world today.
"Not having enough of food can cause a lot of deficiency by way of macro-nutrients like carbohydrates, fats and proteins or even micro-nutrients like zinc, iron and magnesium," says Paediatrician, Max Healthcare, Dr Indra Vij.
One reason as per the Ministry of Women and Child Development is that no special budget was allocated for the malnutrition problem until 2004-2005. The Centre has also been laidback in providing supplement nutrition to the affected states.
Finally more attention has been given to increasing coverage area then ensuring better distribution. End result — today about 60 million children below five are underweight.
"You would find that the child does not grow according to his age. His nervous and general development may also be stunted," says Dr Vij.
In Arunachal Pradesh, malnutrition rate has increased by as much as 12 per cent followed by 8 per cent in Meghalaya, 7 per cent in Haryana and 6 per cent in Madhya Pradesh.
The Madhya Pradesh government has now launched project 'Shaktimaan' supported by the UNICEF to reduce malnutrition and spread health awareness, but one can find simpler solutions at home.
"Whatever food is available to people in rural area, even if it's just rice and daal, should be eaten. They can pick up any green vegetables and eat them. One can also ferment or par-boil foods," says Dr Vij.
Hungry Kya is one fun slogan that urban India is well familiar with. But in a country where so many children are hungry, this perhaps becomes a little ironical.
VARIOUS PROGRAMMES UNDER HEALTH DEPARTMENT
VARIOUS PROGRAMMES UNDER HEALTH DEPARTMENT
NATIONAL AIDS CONTROL PROGRAMME
NATIONAL CANCER CONTROL PROGRAMME
DRUG DE-ADDICTION PROGRAMME
DRUG CONTROL PROGRAMME
PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION PROGRAMME
FAMILY WELFARE PROGRAMME
MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMME
MCH PROGRAMME
NATIONAL DISEASES SURVEILLANCE
NATIONAL PROGRAMME FOR CONTROL OF BLINDNESS
NATIONAL GOITER CONTROL PROGRAMME
NATIONAL TUBERCULOSIS CONTROL PROGRAMME
NATIONAL LEPROSY ERADICATION PROGRAMME
ORAL HEALTH SERVICES
REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH CARE PROGRAMME
RCH SCHEME
RCH ACHIEVEMENT
NATIONAL SCHOOL HEALTH PROGRAMME
NATIONAL ANTI MALARIA PROGRAMME
VECTOR BORNE DISEASE CONTROL PROGRAMME
ICDS PROGRAMME
DISASTER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME
WATER BORNE DISEASES
EMERGENCY SERVICES ETC.
NATIONAL AIDS CONTROL PROGRAMME
NATIONAL CANCER CONTROL PROGRAMME
DRUG DE-ADDICTION PROGRAMME
DRUG CONTROL PROGRAMME
PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION PROGRAMME
FAMILY WELFARE PROGRAMME
MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMME
MCH PROGRAMME
NATIONAL DISEASES SURVEILLANCE
NATIONAL PROGRAMME FOR CONTROL OF BLINDNESS
NATIONAL GOITER CONTROL PROGRAMME
NATIONAL TUBERCULOSIS CONTROL PROGRAMME
NATIONAL LEPROSY ERADICATION PROGRAMME
ORAL HEALTH SERVICES
REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH CARE PROGRAMME
RCH SCHEME
RCH ACHIEVEMENT
NATIONAL SCHOOL HEALTH PROGRAMME
NATIONAL ANTI MALARIA PROGRAMME
VECTOR BORNE DISEASE CONTROL PROGRAMME
ICDS PROGRAMME
DISASTER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME
WATER BORNE DISEASES
EMERGENCY SERVICES ETC.
DEVI RUPAK SCHEME
DETAILS OF DEVI RUPAK SCHEME
A scheme to promote one child norm and spacing of children
Population of Haryana as per 1971 census was 10.36 million, which rose to 16.46 million in the year 1991 showing a decadal growth rate of 27.4%. As per the 2001census, the population of the state is 21.08 million showing a decadal growth rate of 28.06%.
The birth rate of the state in the year 1971 was 42.1 per thousand, which has come down to 26.8 per thousand in the year 1999. To stabilize the population, birth rate has to be further brought down to 21.0 per thousand, which will correspond to total fertility rate of 2.1. As per the National Family Health Survey-II (1998-99) the Fertility Rate of Haryana is 2.88. Further, the sex ratio (females against 1000 males) of Haryana has declined from 870 in the year 1981 to 865 in the year 2001 which is a point of major concern.
In order to stabilize the population of the state and to check the declining trend in the sex ratio, apart from already existing spacing and permanent methods, some innovative scheme is felt to be introduced in the state which can sensitize the community towards the need of adopting one child norm and spacing of children. It is important to promote these ideas especially the newly weds
Keeping in view the above objectives, a scheme by the name "DEVI RUPAK" is proposed to be introduced. Introduction of this scheme will also augment the existing family welfare services and will motivate more and more couples to adopt these norms
The basic idea of "DEVI RUPAK" is to provide monthly incentive of up to Rs. 500 per month to a couple accepting a terminal method of family planning (i.e. Vasectomy or Tubectomy as the case may be) upon the birth of the first child or upon the birth of the second child provided both the children are girls for a period of 20 years, from the date of such acceptance
The amount of monthly incentive proposed to be given as under:-
Sr.No. Stage of adoption Incentive amount per mounth
1. At the birth of first girl child Rs.500
2. At the birth of first boy child Rs.200
3. At the birth of second girl child Rs.200
It is noteworthy that not a penny would be given gratis to any one. Every beneficiary of the scheme shall make a strong contribution to nation building as well. The scheme shall come into force from 25.9.2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligibility conditions:
To be eligible under the scheme a couple would have to get themselves registered with the local Gram Panchayat/ Municipal Committee within those jurisdiction the couple ordinarily resides.
None of the partners constituting the couple should be an income Tax payee.
A. For couples already married before 25.9.2002
The age of husband is 45 years or less and the age of wife is 40 years or less as on 25.9.2002 and neither of them has undergone sterilization before 25.9.2002.
1. If such couple already has only one child and wants to adopt the scheme one of the partners will have to adopt a terminal method of family planning upti 26.1.2003.
2. If such a couple does not have nay child as on 25.9.2002, they would have to get themselves registered under the scheme upto 26.1.2003 and one of the partners will have to adopt a terminal method of family planning within three months of birth of first child.
B. For couples who get married on or after 25.9.2002
1. The age of the husband on the date of marriage must have been at least 21 years and the age of the date girl on date of marriage must have bee 18 years.
2. Such a couple will have to register themselves with the Gram Panchayat/ Municipal Committee within 6 months of their marriage.
3. It shall be mandatory for the registered couples to ensure that the first child is not born upto a date which is at least two years from the date of their marriage. One of the partner shall have to adopt a terminal method of family planning within three months of the birth of the first child for the couple to become eligible under the scheme.
4. In case, neither of the partners adopts a terminal method of family planning within three months of the birth of the first girl child, it would again be mandatory for them to ensure that the second child is not born upto a date which is at least two years from the date of the birth of first child. One of the partners would have to adopt a terminal method of the family planning within three months of the birth of the second girl child for the couple to become eligible under the scheme.
A scheme to promote one child norm and spacing of children
Population of Haryana as per 1971 census was 10.36 million, which rose to 16.46 million in the year 1991 showing a decadal growth rate of 27.4%. As per the 2001census, the population of the state is 21.08 million showing a decadal growth rate of 28.06%.
The birth rate of the state in the year 1971 was 42.1 per thousand, which has come down to 26.8 per thousand in the year 1999. To stabilize the population, birth rate has to be further brought down to 21.0 per thousand, which will correspond to total fertility rate of 2.1. As per the National Family Health Survey-II (1998-99) the Fertility Rate of Haryana is 2.88. Further, the sex ratio (females against 1000 males) of Haryana has declined from 870 in the year 1981 to 865 in the year 2001 which is a point of major concern.
In order to stabilize the population of the state and to check the declining trend in the sex ratio, apart from already existing spacing and permanent methods, some innovative scheme is felt to be introduced in the state which can sensitize the community towards the need of adopting one child norm and spacing of children. It is important to promote these ideas especially the newly weds
Keeping in view the above objectives, a scheme by the name "DEVI RUPAK" is proposed to be introduced. Introduction of this scheme will also augment the existing family welfare services and will motivate more and more couples to adopt these norms
The basic idea of "DEVI RUPAK" is to provide monthly incentive of up to Rs. 500 per month to a couple accepting a terminal method of family planning (i.e. Vasectomy or Tubectomy as the case may be) upon the birth of the first child or upon the birth of the second child provided both the children are girls for a period of 20 years, from the date of such acceptance
The amount of monthly incentive proposed to be given as under:-
Sr.No. Stage of adoption Incentive amount per mounth
1. At the birth of first girl child Rs.500
2. At the birth of first boy child Rs.200
3. At the birth of second girl child Rs.200
It is noteworthy that not a penny would be given gratis to any one. Every beneficiary of the scheme shall make a strong contribution to nation building as well. The scheme shall come into force from 25.9.2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligibility conditions:
To be eligible under the scheme a couple would have to get themselves registered with the local Gram Panchayat/ Municipal Committee within those jurisdiction the couple ordinarily resides.
None of the partners constituting the couple should be an income Tax payee.
A. For couples already married before 25.9.2002
The age of husband is 45 years or less and the age of wife is 40 years or less as on 25.9.2002 and neither of them has undergone sterilization before 25.9.2002.
1. If such couple already has only one child and wants to adopt the scheme one of the partners will have to adopt a terminal method of family planning upti 26.1.2003.
2. If such a couple does not have nay child as on 25.9.2002, they would have to get themselves registered under the scheme upto 26.1.2003 and one of the partners will have to adopt a terminal method of family planning within three months of birth of first child.
B. For couples who get married on or after 25.9.2002
1. The age of the husband on the date of marriage must have been at least 21 years and the age of the date girl on date of marriage must have bee 18 years.
2. Such a couple will have to register themselves with the Gram Panchayat/ Municipal Committee within 6 months of their marriage.
3. It shall be mandatory for the registered couples to ensure that the first child is not born upto a date which is at least two years from the date of their marriage. One of the partner shall have to adopt a terminal method of family planning within three months of the birth of the first child for the couple to become eligible under the scheme.
4. In case, neither of the partners adopts a terminal method of family planning within three months of the birth of the first girl child, it would again be mandatory for them to ensure that the second child is not born upto a date which is at least two years from the date of the birth of first child. One of the partners would have to adopt a terminal method of the family planning within three months of the birth of the second girl child for the couple to become eligible under the scheme.
PLATO ON HEALTH
The greatest mistake in the treatment of diseases is that there are physicians for the body and physicians for the soul, although the two cannot be separated.
~Plato
Body and soul cannot be separated for purposes of treatment, for they are one and indivisible. Sick minds must be healed as well as sick bodies.
~C. Jeff Miller
I got the bill for my surgery. Now I know what those doctors were wearing masks for.
~James H. Boren
A hospital should also have a recovery room adjoining the cashier's office. ~Francis O'Walsh
~Plato
Body and soul cannot be separated for purposes of treatment, for they are one and indivisible. Sick minds must be healed as well as sick bodies.
~C. Jeff Miller
I got the bill for my surgery. Now I know what those doctors were wearing masks for.
~James H. Boren
A hospital should also have a recovery room adjoining the cashier's office. ~Francis O'Walsh
JSA BYCOTT
Jan Swasthya Abhiyan
(Peoples Health Movement – India)
Health for All - Now! Health is a Basic Human Right!
Press Release
For Favour of Publication
The Jan Swasthya Abhiyan (JSA http://phm-india.org/), comprising 18 national networks and hundreds of state level/local organisations engaged in promoting issues related to public health in India, announces a call to doctors to boycott all products manufactured by the Swiss MNC, Novartis, till Novartis withdraws it’s case before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board for seeking a patent on Gleevec and abandon all it’s attempts and plans to misuse the Indian decision making and redressal systems for it’s narrow ends.
The JSA has decided to issue the boycott call after prolonged deliberation, given the intransigent attitude shown by Novartis in obstructing access to a vital medicine for blood cancer. Novartis had first pressed for removal of a key public health safeguard in the Indian Patent Act and now continues to persist in pressing for a patent for its anti leukemia drug, Gleevec (beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate), after its application was rejected by the Indian Patent office.
Imatinib mesylate is extremely useful in the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) a type of blood cancer. In addition to Novartis, several Indian companies – viz. NATCO, Cipla, Ranbaxy and Hetero -- also produce and market this drug. Treatment with Gleevec (manufactured and marketed by Novartis) costs rupees 1,20,000 per month, whereas Indian companies market the same drug at a price of about Rs. 8,000 per month. If a patent were to be granted to Novartis for the beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate, some Indian companies may have to stop production of this medicine, and this may drastically curtail the options for the patients to avail the far cheaper version of this life saving medicine. At a treatment cost of Rs.1,20,000 per month, this would mean that over 99% of patients requiring this drug would be denied access to it. The huge difference in the price of the same drug is an illustration of how a patent monopoly can be used by drug companies to generate super-profits while endangering the lives of thousands, or even millions.
Novartis has challenged the order of the Indian Patent office, rejecting its application for a patent on the beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate. This case will be heard by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The Indian Patent office had rejected the application for a patent on sound principles, entirely consistent with the country’s laws and the agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
Novartis had filed a second case challenging the constitutional validity of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act. Section 3(d) was specifically introduced by the Indian parliament as a safeguard against the misuse of product patents on medicines. It is a matter of grave concern that a foreign company chose to challenge the constitutionality of a law that has been passed by the Indian Parliament to safeguard public health. The consequences of a change in the safeguards in the Indian Patent Act would not be limited just to India. Today India is known globally as the “Pharmacy of the Third World”, because Indian companies export cheaper versions of patented drugs to over 150 countries. For example, over half the medicines currently used for AIDS treatment in developing countries come from India. Many reputed personalities publicly appealed to Novartis to
withdraw the court case. They include Erik Solheim, Minister of International Development, Norway and Henry Waxman, Chairman, Congress of United States. The Chennai High Court’s decision on 6th August, 2007 to dismiss Novartis’s plea has vindicated our stand. The Chennai Court said that it does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the Indian Patent law is TRIPS compliant or not; the appropriate forum, being the WTO Disputes Settlement Body.
Instead of giving up, however, Novartis has decided to pursue its case challenging the denial of a patent on Imatinib to be heard by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board! It has also appealed to the Chennai High Court again, this time asking for removal of Sri.Chandrashekharan from the Appellate Board as the company claims he is a biased party because he was involved in rejecting its patent claim on Gleevec earlier! Novartis has also held out a veiled threat in its response to the dismissal of its petition by the Chennai High Court. Chief Executive, Daniel Vasella, has been quoted by the Financial Times as saying: "This [ruling] is not an invitation to invest in Indian research and development, which we would have done. We will invest more in countries where we have protection. It's not a punishment. It's just a question of the culture for investment."
This is the background of JSA’ boycott appeal. We once again appeal to Novartis to desist in persisting to challenge the Indian legal system and in attempting to jeopardise the lives of millions. We appeal to the Medical community in India to unite in a show of opposition to the methods used by Novartis that compromise access to vital medicines, by signing the boycott letter issued by JSA or by signing the online petition at http://novartisboycott.org/. The two selling products marketed by Novartis in India are Voveran (a pain killer and anti-inflammatory drug) and Calcium Sandoz (a calcium supplement). We are sure that patients would not suffer because of this boycott, because good substitutes are available in India for all Novartis products. When and if a substitute is not available in a city/village for a Novartis product, we would urge doctors to boycott other Novartis products.
(Dr.B.Ekbal)
Convenor, Jan Swasthya Abhiyan
Addresses for Correspondence:
National Secretariat c/o SATHI CEHAT, 3&4, Aman Terrace, Plot No. 140, Dahanukar Colony, Kothrud, Pune 411029
Ph: (020) 5451413 / 5452325 Email: cehatpun@vsnl.con
National Secretariat, Delhi: D-158, Lower Ground Floor, Saket, New Delhi -110017.
Ph: (011) 26524324 , 26862716 (Telfax). Email: ctddsf@vsnl.co
(Peoples Health Movement – India)
Health for All - Now! Health is a Basic Human Right!
Press Release
For Favour of Publication
The Jan Swasthya Abhiyan (JSA http://phm-india.org/), comprising 18 national networks and hundreds of state level/local organisations engaged in promoting issues related to public health in India, announces a call to doctors to boycott all products manufactured by the Swiss MNC, Novartis, till Novartis withdraws it’s case before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board for seeking a patent on Gleevec and abandon all it’s attempts and plans to misuse the Indian decision making and redressal systems for it’s narrow ends.
The JSA has decided to issue the boycott call after prolonged deliberation, given the intransigent attitude shown by Novartis in obstructing access to a vital medicine for blood cancer. Novartis had first pressed for removal of a key public health safeguard in the Indian Patent Act and now continues to persist in pressing for a patent for its anti leukemia drug, Gleevec (beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate), after its application was rejected by the Indian Patent office.
Imatinib mesylate is extremely useful in the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) a type of blood cancer. In addition to Novartis, several Indian companies – viz. NATCO, Cipla, Ranbaxy and Hetero -- also produce and market this drug. Treatment with Gleevec (manufactured and marketed by Novartis) costs rupees 1,20,000 per month, whereas Indian companies market the same drug at a price of about Rs. 8,000 per month. If a patent were to be granted to Novartis for the beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate, some Indian companies may have to stop production of this medicine, and this may drastically curtail the options for the patients to avail the far cheaper version of this life saving medicine. At a treatment cost of Rs.1,20,000 per month, this would mean that over 99% of patients requiring this drug would be denied access to it. The huge difference in the price of the same drug is an illustration of how a patent monopoly can be used by drug companies to generate super-profits while endangering the lives of thousands, or even millions.
Novartis has challenged the order of the Indian Patent office, rejecting its application for a patent on the beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate. This case will be heard by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The Indian Patent office had rejected the application for a patent on sound principles, entirely consistent with the country’s laws and the agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
Novartis had filed a second case challenging the constitutional validity of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act. Section 3(d) was specifically introduced by the Indian parliament as a safeguard against the misuse of product patents on medicines. It is a matter of grave concern that a foreign company chose to challenge the constitutionality of a law that has been passed by the Indian Parliament to safeguard public health. The consequences of a change in the safeguards in the Indian Patent Act would not be limited just to India. Today India is known globally as the “Pharmacy of the Third World”, because Indian companies export cheaper versions of patented drugs to over 150 countries. For example, over half the medicines currently used for AIDS treatment in developing countries come from India. Many reputed personalities publicly appealed to Novartis to
withdraw the court case. They include Erik Solheim, Minister of International Development, Norway and Henry Waxman, Chairman, Congress of United States. The Chennai High Court’s decision on 6th August, 2007 to dismiss Novartis’s plea has vindicated our stand. The Chennai Court said that it does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the Indian Patent law is TRIPS compliant or not; the appropriate forum, being the WTO Disputes Settlement Body.
Instead of giving up, however, Novartis has decided to pursue its case challenging the denial of a patent on Imatinib to be heard by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board! It has also appealed to the Chennai High Court again, this time asking for removal of Sri.Chandrashekharan from the Appellate Board as the company claims he is a biased party because he was involved in rejecting its patent claim on Gleevec earlier! Novartis has also held out a veiled threat in its response to the dismissal of its petition by the Chennai High Court. Chief Executive, Daniel Vasella, has been quoted by the Financial Times as saying: "This [ruling] is not an invitation to invest in Indian research and development, which we would have done. We will invest more in countries where we have protection. It's not a punishment. It's just a question of the culture for investment."
This is the background of JSA’ boycott appeal. We once again appeal to Novartis to desist in persisting to challenge the Indian legal system and in attempting to jeopardise the lives of millions. We appeal to the Medical community in India to unite in a show of opposition to the methods used by Novartis that compromise access to vital medicines, by signing the boycott letter issued by JSA or by signing the online petition at http://novartisboycott.org/. The two selling products marketed by Novartis in India are Voveran (a pain killer and anti-inflammatory drug) and Calcium Sandoz (a calcium supplement). We are sure that patients would not suffer because of this boycott, because good substitutes are available in India for all Novartis products. When and if a substitute is not available in a city/village for a Novartis product, we would urge doctors to boycott other Novartis products.
(Dr.B.Ekbal)
Convenor, Jan Swasthya Abhiyan
Addresses for Correspondence:
National Secretariat c/o SATHI CEHAT, 3&4, Aman Terrace, Plot No. 140, Dahanukar Colony, Kothrud, Pune 411029
Ph: (020) 5451413 / 5452325 Email: cehatpun@vsnl.con
National Secretariat, Delhi: D-158, Lower Ground Floor, Saket, New Delhi -110017.
Ph: (011) 26524324 , 26862716 (Telfax). Email: ctddsf@vsnl.co
Bycott Novartis
Dear Doctor/Colleague
The Novartis, a Swiss Multinational pharmaceutical company operating in India,has challenged the order of the Patent Office in Chennai, rejecting its application for a patent on
IMATINIB MESYLATE which Novartis markets in India under the trade name Gleevec. In the second application filed in the Chennai High Court, Novartis had challenged the
constitutional validity of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act by claiming that this section does not comply with the TRIPs agreement
It is a matter of grave concern that a foreign company chose to challenge the constitution ability of a law that has been passed by the Indian Parliamentto safeguard public health. Members of the medical profession need to be particularly concerned about such attempted misuse of use of Indian Legal System.
As you would know, Imatinib mesylate is extremely useful in the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).
Treatment with Gleevec (manufactured and marketed by Novartis) costs rupees 1,20,000 per month, whereas Indian companies ( Cipla/Ranbaxy) market the same drug at a price of about Rs. 8,000 per month.
If a patent were to be granted to Novartis for imatinib mesylate, some Indian companies may be forced to stop production of the drug denying access to it to 99% of patients. It will open the floodgates for the MNC’s so that they too can apply for trivial patents.
Haryana Vigyan manch and Jan Sawasthaya Abhiyan Haryana appeal to you as a medical Professional to bycott products that are manufactured and marketed by Novartis by refraining from prescribing drugs that are marketed by Novartis.
Sincerely Yours
R.S. Dahiya Ved Pirya
President Haryana Vigyan Manch Secretary ,Haryana Vigyan Manch
9812139001 9992132961
The Novartis, a Swiss Multinational pharmaceutical company operating in India,has challenged the order of the Patent Office in Chennai, rejecting its application for a patent on
IMATINIB MESYLATE which Novartis markets in India under the trade name Gleevec. In the second application filed in the Chennai High Court, Novartis had challenged the
constitutional validity of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act by claiming that this section does not comply with the TRIPs agreement
It is a matter of grave concern that a foreign company chose to challenge the constitution ability of a law that has been passed by the Indian Parliamentto safeguard public health. Members of the medical profession need to be particularly concerned about such attempted misuse of use of Indian Legal System.
As you would know, Imatinib mesylate is extremely useful in the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).
Treatment with Gleevec (manufactured and marketed by Novartis) costs rupees 1,20,000 per month, whereas Indian companies ( Cipla/Ranbaxy) market the same drug at a price of about Rs. 8,000 per month.
If a patent were to be granted to Novartis for imatinib mesylate, some Indian companies may be forced to stop production of the drug denying access to it to 99% of patients. It will open the floodgates for the MNC’s so that they too can apply for trivial patents.
Haryana Vigyan manch and Jan Sawasthaya Abhiyan Haryana appeal to you as a medical Professional to bycott products that are manufactured and marketed by Novartis by refraining from prescribing drugs that are marketed by Novartis.
Sincerely Yours
R.S. Dahiya Ved Pirya
President Haryana Vigyan Manch Secretary ,Haryana Vigyan Manch
9812139001 9992132961
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)