DOI: https://doi.org/10.25040/medicallaw2015.02.031
Med. pravo., 2015; 2(16): 31-40
UDC: 347.1
KASHYNTSEVA OKSANA YURIIVNA
Ph.D. (Law), head of the Center for Harmonization of Human Rights and Intellectual Property Rights of Intellectual Property Research Institute of National Academy of Law Sciences of Ukraine, attorney-at-law, member of the Board of All-Ukrainian NGO «Foundation of Medical Law and Bioethics of Ukraine»
Ethics and Patent Law in Health Care: Ukrainian Reform
Article concerns the ethical and legal aspects of harmonization of Human Rights and Intellectual Property rights in the sphere of Health Care. The author determines main trends of Ukrainian patent reform in the medicine and pharmacy. Key research activities of the center for Harmonization of Human Rights and Intellectual Property Rights of the Intellectual Property Research Institute of the National Academy of Law Sciences of Ukraine are elucidated in article.
Key words: Human Rights, intellectual property, ethics, health care, patent reform.
Reference list
1. Chapma A.R. A Human Rights Perspective on intellectual property, scientific progress and access to the scientific benefits. A.R. Chapman. Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_unhchr_ip_pnl_98
2. Downes D. The 1999 WTO Review of Life Patenting Under TRIPS. David Downes. Center for International Environmental Law, Washington, D.C., September 1998, p. 1. Retrieved from www.iprsonline.org
3. The Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, reprinted in International Commission of Jurists, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. A Compilation of Essential Documents (Geneva. ICJ, 1997) Retrieved from https://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/Maastrichtguidelines_.html
4. Center for Harmonization of Human Rights and IP Rights. Retrieved from http://www.ndiiv.org.ua/en/about-the-institute.html
5. Conception of the Development of Scientific Direction. Harmonization of Human Rights and Intellectual Property Rights in the Sphere of Medicine and Pharmacy. Retrieved from http://www.ndiiv.org.ua/en/conception.html
6. European Union Ukraine Association Agreement. Retrieved from http://eeas.europa.eu/ukraine/assoagreement/assoagreement-2013_en.htm
7. Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. Retrieved from conventions.coe
8. Cresp R. Patenting and Ethics. A Dubious Connection 5 Bio Science Law Review 71. R. Crespi. Retrieved from www.alrc
9. Ho C. Building a Better Mousetrap. Patenting Biotechnology in the European Community (1992) C. Ho. 3 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 173, 195 cited in B Looney. Should Genes be Patented. The Gene Patenting Controversy. Legal, Ethical, and Policy Foundations of an International Agreement (1994) 26 Law and Policy in International Business 101, 12.
10. Baldock C. Report Q 150. Patentability Requirements and Scope of Protection of Expressed Sequence Tags (ESTs), Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) and Entire Genomes. (2000) 22 European Intellectual Property Review 39, p. 40.
11. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Genetic Inventions, Intellectual Property Rights and Licensing Practices. Evidence and Policies (2002), p. 75.
12. Law of Ukraine On the Protection of Rights to Inventions and Utility Models. The Official Journal of the Verhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine 1994, No. 7.
13. Gluchman V. (2003) Human Being and Morality in Ethics of Social Consequences. Problems in Contemporary Philosophy. Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture, Submission p. 81.
14. 16 April 2004, B. Sherman, Regulating Access and Use of Genetic Resources Intellectual Property Law and Biodiscovery. (2003) 25 European Intellectual Property Review 301.
15. Drahos P. (1999) Biotechnology Patents, Markets and Morality. P. Drahos. 21 European Intellectual Property Review, 1999, 21.
16. Nicol D. (1996) Should Human Genes be Patentable Inventions under Australian Patent Law. D. Nicol. 3 Journal of Law and Medicine.
17. Forsyth M. (2000) Biotechnology, Patents and Public Policy: A Proposal for Reform in Australia. M. Forsyth. 11 Australian Intellectual Property Journal.
18. Joos v Commissioner of Patents (1972) 126 CLR 611, 623. Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd v Ramset Fastners (Aust) Pty Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 171, 190, Anaesthetic Supplies Pty Ltd v Rescare Ltd (1994) 50 FCR 1, 41, Bristol Myers Squibb Company v FH Faulding Co Ltd (1998) 41 IRP 467, p. 479, on appeal to the Full Federal Court Bristol Myers Squibb Co v FH Faulding Co Ltd (2000) 170 ALR 439, p. 444.
19. Uhoda pro torhivelni aspekty prav intelektualnoi vlasnosti. Retrieved from http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/981_018
20. Australia United States Free Trade Agreement. Retrieved from http://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/ausfta
21. European Patent Convention, entered into force on 7 October 1977, art 53(a). Retrieved from www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/epc.html
22. Directive 98, 44, EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31998L0044
23. Operational Guidance For Ethics Review of Health Related Researches with Human Participants. World Health Organization, 2011.
