Faunce Thomas Alured
Australian National University Medical School, Australia.
Monash Bioeth Rev. 2005 Jul;24(3):10-9. doi: 10.1007/BF03351435.
The United Nations Scientific, Education and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) has commenced drafting a Universal Bioethics Declaration. Some in the relevant UNESCO drafting committee have previously desired to restrict its content to general principles concerning the application (but not necessarily the goals) of science and technology. As potentially a crucial agenda-setting statement of global bioethics, however, it is arguable important the Universal Bioethics Declaration transparently address major bioethical dilemmas in the field of public health, such as universal access to affordable, essential medicines. Article 13 (Social Responsibility) of the Preliminary Draft Universal Bioethics Declaration states: 'Any decision or practice shall ensure that progress in science and technology contributes, wherever possible, to the common good, including the achievement of goals such as: (i) access to quality health care and essential medicines, including for reproductive health and health of children.' Cost effectiveness pricing systems, such as that most notably used in Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), arguably represent one of the most scientifically effective mechanisms whereby public monies may be utilised to assist in the provision of medicines for the common good. They contain two essential elements: first, a process of scientific evaluation of objectively demonstrated therapeutic significance, and then, a fiscal lever (the government reimbursement price) attached to that evaluation. It is now well established that the US Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (Pharma), through the assistance of the US Trade Representative (USTR), saw the Australia United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) as an opportunity to fulfill a legislative mandate to 'eliminate' the cost-effectiveness pricing system in Australia's PBS. One of the most remarkable features of the arguments raised against the PBS in this context was the fact that they made almost no reference to the normative discourse of bioethics or international human rights. Provisions such as Article 13 in UNESCO's Universal Bioethics Declaration, although they will create no immediate obligations under international law, may play an extremely valuable role in legitimising the use of bioethical and human rights concepts in access to medicines debates surrounding multilateral and bilateral international trade deals such as the AUSFTA.
联合国科学、教育及文化组织(教科文组织)已开始起草一份《世界生物伦理宣言》。教科文组织相关起草委员会的一些成员此前希望将其内容限制在关于科学技术应用(但不一定是目标)的一般原则上。然而,作为一份可能具有关键议程设定作用的全球生物伦理声明,《世界生物伦理宣言》透明地解决公共卫生领域的主要生物伦理困境,如普遍获得负担得起的基本药物,这一点颇具争议。《世界生物伦理宣言》初稿第13条(社会责任)规定:“任何决定或做法都应确保科学技术的进步尽可能有助于共同利益,包括实现以下目标:(i) 获得优质医疗保健和基本药物,包括生殖健康和儿童健康方面的药物。”成本效益定价系统,例如澳大利亚药品福利计划(PBS)中最显著使用的那种,可说是利用公共资金协助提供造福大众的药物的最科学有效的机制之一。它们包含两个基本要素:第一,对客观证明的治疗意义进行科学评估的过程,然后,与该评估相关的财政杠杆(政府报销价格)。现在已经很清楚,美国制药研究与制造商协会(Pharma)在美国贸易代表(USTR)的协助下,将《澳美自由贸易协定》(AUSFTA)视为一个机会,以履行“消除”澳大利亚PBS中的成本效益定价系统的立法任务。在此背景下,针对PBS提出的论点最显著的特点之一是,它们几乎没有提及生物伦理或国际人权的规范性论述。教科文组织《世界生物伦理宣言》中的第13条等条款,尽管它们不会在国际法下立即产生义务,但在围绕多边和双边国际贸易协定(如《澳美自由贸易协定》)的药品获取辩论中,在使生物伦理和人权概念的使用合法化方面可能发挥极其宝贵的作用。