Now It's Canada's Turn To Decide On The Patentability Of Genes
from the matter-of-life-and-death dept
It's taken a surprisingly long time for countries to settle the question of whether something as fundamental as genes can be patented or not. And opinions still differ: last year, the US Supreme Court ruled that naturally-occurring genes couldn't be patented, while more recently, Australia went the other way (although it's possible that ruling could be overturned by higher courts there). Now a test case has been filed this week to establish the situation in Canada, as the Toronto Star reports:
Monday's legal case, brought by the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO), deals with five patents held in Canada by the University of Utah on genes and tests for an inherited cardiac condition called Long QT syndrome.Interestingly, the case is not about genes that play a role in developing breast cancer, which were the focus of attention in both the US and Australian court decisions. However, as with breast cancer, the effects of allowing gene patents in this area is the same -- to drive up the cost of testing:
The two-tier test [for Long QT syndrome] currently costs approximately $4,500 (U.S.) per person, CHEO estimates, whereas researchers at the hospital believe they could administer the same process in-house for about half the cost.This isn't just about money: it's a matter of life and death. The more expensive a gene-based test, the less likely it will be used by hospitals, which are struggling to make their limited budgets stretch as far as possible. And that means that medical conditions will be missed, with serious, possibly fatal, consequences.
"The collective impact (of this case) could easily be in the orders of millions of dollars for the healthcare system," said Gail Graham, a clinical geneticist at the hospital.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: canada, dna, genes, patents
Companies: cheo, children's hospital of eastern ontario, university of utah
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hits close to home
But the genetic testing has moved past the "guinea pig" phase, so even with insurance, and even testing for only the 1 (of 5) markers it was still a few hundred out of pocket (note: I'm in the US).
Long QT Syndrome sucks. Primary symptom is sudden unexplained death :P
Can't believe a university would be trying to do that sort of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(And before anyone tries to nitpick this, I'm talking about actual medical practice, stuff that treats the sick and injured and saves lives. Purely voluntary stuff like plastic surgery should obviously not be held to the same standard.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In many cases, this comes down to "what is the purpose of medicine?" Is it just to ensure that nobody dies as far as possible? If that's the case, then the line is bright and clear. But I don't think that's the case -- I think the purpose of medicine is to improve the health of the patient. There, things get fuzzier.
For example, many plastic surgeries -- say, to correct disfigurement from gross injury -- are technically optional because the patient will live if they don't get it. But the surgery may be necessary to prevent them from having a nightmarish life.
So, I'm not disagreeing with you, but just wanted to point out that these issues are often far from cut & dried.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]