Why Uganda’s Anti-Gay Legislation Is the World’s Business

via Bloomberg News, by the editors

Uganda’s anti-homosexuality bill just won’t go away.

Last spring, an egregious proposal by a member of the ruling party to impose harsh penalties, including death, for homosexual acts was shelved for a second time when Uganda’s parliament recessed without debating it. This week, parliament moved to revive the measure.

Homosexuality is already illegal in Uganda. The law would increase the maximum penalties, providing up to life imprisonment for homosexual acts and execution for so-called aggravated homosexuality -- repeated homosexual behavior, homosexual acts with a minor or a disabled person, and homosexual acts by anyone who is HIV-positive.

The original bill also made it punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment to fail to report homosexual behavior to authorities within 24 hours. In the last parliamentary session, a committee recommended scratching that provision, which would compromise health workers involved in AIDS control efforts. It’s not clear this time around whether the bill will go through the committee process anew; in any case, committee views are not binding.

The bill enjoys considerable support in Uganda, where homosexuality is widely abhorred, and may well pass if it comes to a parliamentary vote. President Yoweri Museveni would probably veto it, knowing that passage would alienate Uganda’s Western allies, on whom the country relies for development assistance.

For now, the circus around the draft law suits Museveni, who has been in power for 25 years. Domestically, it whips up support for his party, the National Resistance Movement. Internationally, it attracts opprobrium but also distracts critics from other Ugandan scandals for which Museveni bears more direct responsibility: the arrest of opposition figures, police brutality, corruption.

Read the rest.


[If an item is not written by an IRMA member, it should not be construed that IRMA has taken a position on the article's content, whether in support or in opposition.]

Legal Case in India Threatens HIV Drug Access for Poorest

via The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, by Melanie Newman

"India is literally the lifeline of patients in the developing world, especially in the poorest parts of Africa…If Sec. 3(d) is overturned, it means any meaningful effort to make these vital medicines available will be put in jeopardy."

A technical case going through the Supreme Court in India is being carefully watched by aid agencies and other human rights organisations, who claim it could have severe consequences for the supply of lifesaving drugs to the developing world.

More than 90% of drugs used to treat children with AIDS in Africa come from Indian generic manufacturers, according to the medical NGO Medicins Sans Frontieres. And if the Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis wins a case it has brought against the Indian government, MSF fears that supply could dry up.

Novartis is seeking patent protection for its leukaemia drug Glivec, whose patent has expired in India. It is challenging India’s interpretation of a section of the nation’s patent law — Section 3(d) — which prevents ‘evergreening’.

Read the rest.

[If an item is not written by an IRMA member, it should not be construed that IRMA has taken a position on the article's content, whether in support or in opposition.]

Why the CIA's Vaccine Ruse Is A Setback for Global Health

Via TIME, by Emily Rauhala.

Last week, the Guardian broke the news that in the run-up to the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound, the CIA used a vaccination campaign as a ruse to get DNA evidence from the al-Qaeda leader's kids. With help from a Pakistani doctor, Shakil Afridi, they set up clinics in two neighborhoods, delivering doses of the Hepatitis B vaccine to local children. The revelation drew a quick and angry response from health experts. Medecins Sans Frontieres called the operation "a dangerous abuse of medical care." In the Washington Post, Orin Levine and Laurie Garrett warned that the CIA's "reckless tactics could have catastrophic consequences."

Indeed, they may. Here are three reasons why this is bad news for public health:

1. Broken Trust

When people don't trust medical personnel, they're less likely to participate in legitimate public health campaigns. Eight years ago, rumors spread that an anti-polio campaign in Nigeria was an American plot to sterilize Muslim girls, causing many families to refuse the vaccine. The subsequent outbreak spread to eight countries.

Read the rest here.

[If an item is not written by an IRMA member, it should not be construed that IRMA has taken a position on the article's content, whether in support or in opposition.]