that innovation is by providing protection of IPR.”

Echoing Caruso’s sentiment, Anutra Sinchaipanich, Business and Corporate Affairs Director at Pfizer Global Pharmaceuticals adds, “With IPRs, we feel that the essence of what we’re trying to do with medicine—save lives—is not going to happen in a year or two...and if people don’t recognize the value of the innovator, there will no longer be an incentive to do it.”

It is one thing to have stringent protection standards for intellectual property relating to the entertainment or technology industries. It is quite another to enforce the same level of protection for essential pharmaceutical products. Dr. Kajit Sukhum of the Thai Department of Intellectual Property states, “If you look in all arenas [of IPR], there’s no word that says suitable. No word that says balance, no word that says equality.” It is time for Americans to have a public debate regarding the future direction of IPR laws. It seems likely that the majority of American citizens’ values are not reflected in the policies instituted in developing countries through agreements such as FTAs.

“If you look in all arenas [of IPR], there's no word that says suitable. No word that says balance, no word that says equality."

People in Thailand are already having this discussion, and many have recognized that the FTA with the U.S. is a dangerous and, for some, potentially fatal agreement. During the sixth round of negotiations in Chiang Mai, some 10,000 protesters aggressively swarmed the Sheraton hotel negotiation site, shouting their discontent and holding signs with clear messages like “Life is not for sale! IPR out of FTA!” The protesters, about half of whom are people living with HIV/AIDS, recognize that this problem extends further than just AIDS. This affects us all.

Several internationally recognized treaties, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, recognize the right to health as a fundamental human right. In 2001, the 57th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights confirmed, “access to medication in the context to HIV/AIDS is one fundamental element for achieving progressively the full realization of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.” The future of IPR policy has the potential to infringe on this human right unless flexibilities are established and maintained.

Peerchapol Mnapanya, AIDS patient and volunteer with the Mahasarakharm HIV/AIDS Outreach Program, boldly states, “We’re not afraid to die to stop the process. We’re not fighting against this as HIV/AIDS patients only. We’re doing this for everyone in Thailand.” Mnapanya and his fellow protesters provide a voice for sick people everywhere. We will all need access to affordable medications at some point in our lives, and agreements like the FTA can restrict that access. While intellectual property needs to be protected, there must be a limit on the rigidity of IPRs when it comes to medication. At the end of the day, a human life is worth more than a profit margin.