Search

Despite self-congratulatory rhetoric, Canada compromised COVID-19 vaccine equity with policies impeding a proposed global waiver of vaccine intellectual property (IP) rules. To learn from Canada’s vaccine nationalism we explore the worldview – a coherent textual picture of the world – in a sample of Government of Canada communications regarding global COVID-19 vaccine sharing. Analysed documents portray risks and disparities as unrelated to the dynamics and power relations of the Canadian and international economies. Against this depoliticised backdrop, economic growth fueled by strict IP rules and free trade is advanced as the solution to inequities. Global vaccine access and distribution are pursued via a charity-focused public-private-partnership approach, with proposals to relax international IP rules dismissed as unhelpful. Rather than a puzzling lapse by a good faith ‘middle power’, Canada’s obstruction of global COVID-19 vaccine equity is a logical and deliberate extension of dominant neoliberal economic policy models. Health sector challenges to such models must prioritise equity in global pandemic governance via politically assertive and less conciliatory stances towards national governments and multilateral organisations. Mobilisation for health equity should transform the overall health-damaging macroeconomic model, complementing efforts based on specific individual health determinants or medical technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Companies often defending their products when there are concerns about their safety and/or effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: This study looks at drugs removed from the Canadian market from 1990 onward and examines how companies responded. METHODS: This descriptive analysis used a previously published article and a hand search of a Government of Canada website to generate a list of drugs withdrawn from Canada from 1990 onwards. For each product the following information was extracted: brand name, generic name, company, date of withdrawal and evidence base for withdrawal. Google and Factiva searches were used to identify sources containing statements from the company about the withdrawal. Statements were independently graded by two people into the following categories: company agrees with the withdrawal; drug could be used safely with certain precautions; company may reintroduce the drug; company disagrees with the withdrawal. Searches were carried out between September 15–20, 2020. RESULTS: There were 22 drugs for which there were company statements. In 10 statements, the companies disagreed with the decision to withdraw the drug and in 7 they agreed with the decision. In the other 5 cases they felt that the drug could have been kept on the market with restrictions (2 cases) or they might reintroduce the drug (3 cases). The level of evidence for the withdrawal did not seem to influence the companies' position. CONCLUSION: In 15 out of 22 cases, the company either disagreed with the decision to withdraw the drug or felt that the drug should continue to be available to Canadian patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]