"I don't think it is presumptuous at all to say that Australians want a world-class health system.""

We HAD a world class health system.

CEO's, the business council and out of touch politicians living in Canberra fairy-land have stuffed so many immigrants into cities for GST, Votes and burgeoning market-shares that when you go to an emergency department with a broken leg you're likely to come away with a black eye. It wasn't like that as little as 5 years ago but it is now and its getting worse.

Triage sisters spend nearly a third of their time calling out Mahommed and other Islamic names. 5 years ago there wouldn't have been but one and you could be seen in less than 1/2hour instead of 5 or 6 hours now. Go to an emergency department and see for yourself.

If it weren't so serious it would be a Mike Carlton comedy classic.

As politicians feel the heat of racially divided communities and waning support for ruling Anglo Saxon Government, the first lever they pull is "more immigration" hoping against hope that the bigger crowd mentality will make communities MORE dependent and thus less likely to vote for the "opposition". CEO's love this because they rake in the money from bigger markets. Governments love it because all they have to do is PROMISE better health and infrastructure but never have to deliver it because those who need it die in the rat race.

Every time, costs like health care are externalised to the sick and dying, who one way or another are perishing and will continue to perish well into the next 3 decades despite any money-spinning gene patents. This is BECAUSE it MAKES GOOD BUSINESS, STRONG GST cashed up Anglo GOVERNMENT and a NATION BUILT of idiots no better off than farm animals mooing, whinnying, braying and snorting "we are, you are, I am Austra-lee-an" as they walk up the ramp to the taxation abbatoir.

And yes, their meat will be tastier. Thanks to those GENE PATENTS that only abbatoirs could afford to franchise

Dear Stezza,

It is presumptuous on your part to assume that here is a case of mis-understanding. It is rather a case of not being in agreement.

I happen to believe, for various reasons, that the above "dream" is not a good idea and so do some of my friends. There are also others who think that "well, it's OK if it happened, but certainly not a priority" and yet some others who think "It would be nice, but I don't want to pay the price". We simply don't share that dream.

Do you know the meaning of the word "every"?
It does not mean "some", not even "most", it means that not even one Australian out of about 22 millions does not share that same dream. The author goes further to claim that her statement is "undeniable" - well I am able to deny it, so her statement is obviously false!

"I've never anyone argue that our health system is "too good"."

I believe you, but that does not mean that you met everyone in Australia, or even if you did, that everyone was interested in arguing with you. Now even when people do believe that our health system is "not too good", that does not automatically imply that their idea of goodness is identical to your idea of goodness.

Thank you.

lets compare these two auther quotes

"With appropriate safeguards
gene patenting is the only way
we will derive the full benefit from our biological inheritance"

so the auther wants to patent genes
yet in the body of the text states this

"In Australia today naturally-occurring phenomena such as genes are already considered discoveries, not inventions,

and therefore are not patentable subject matter"

when arjay made his valid point
the second quote was put there as some form of talism

yet lets look at the HEADING TITLE

"Without gene patents people will die"

so what does this suggest?

this is a lobby article
to get patent rights

thus arjays statement
STANDS

''There is an agenda here to own existing genes by purely mapping them.

It is like the old colonalism,"
We own the newly discovered lands because we mapped them first."

No consideration is given to those who own the genes or the live in those lands.

They will belong to the new global corporate culture.""

lest we forget what ge corn genes
found in a neighbouring farm does/did for monsanto

THEY SUE
they test the corn
and say look here are OUR GENES

and that folks is what its all about

[stealing the healthy genes]
so those who carry them..
CANT EVEN CLAIM to own/their own genes

these people arnt interested in finding any cure
they dont care about sick
THEY WANT TO STAKE THEIR CLAIM

lest we forget govt bought the gene mapping machines
if anyone could claim to own 'genes'..it MIGHT be govt
but only as a trust... not a patent right...

the authers adgenda
is owning your genes.[fullstop]

There's some scary and misinformed people on here.

Here's some facts:
1. you cannot draft a patent claim today for purely a gene sequence and obtain a patent monopoly for 20 years. Why? because the human genome has been mapped (Human Genome Project) and so the claim will not be novel.
2. Yes, there are a few (approx. 400 I believe) "gene patents" that haven't yet come off patent and were filed before the Human Genome Project sequenced the human genome. They will come off patent in the next couple of years and this will return to being the nonissue it was for the last few decades.
3. The proposed patent amendment act will not prevent the Australian monopoly GTG has over the BRCA1/2 diagnostic tests which started this debate in the first place. Seems silly doesn't it that the reason for amending the Patent Act 1990 won't even be affected.
4. Amending the Act according to the proposed changes will effect availability of medicines in Australia. Read the senate submissions and you will see that Amgen, the world's biggest biotech company have stated that if they don't have patent protection for their products (and they are completely aware that they won't which is why the American company is making the submission), they will not send them into the Australian market.
5. If the same proposed amendments in the Bill had been introduced 10 to 15 years ago, 28 of the most popular medicines in use in Australia including herceptin, the commonly used breast cancer drug would not be under patent and therefore would not likely be available in Australia (source: Medicines Australia)(i.e you would need to import them at exhorbitant cost because the PBS wouldn't apply)
6. Pharmaceuticals are expensive because it costs a company on average approx. half a billion dollars to take a promising compound and turn it into an approved drug on a pharmacy shelf.

cont.

7. Won't generics just come into Australia and fill any space left by the innovative companies? No. Why? because they will have to carry out the trials themselves in order to gain Australian regulatory approval and develop a market for the product in Australia. Why would they spend the millions under the knowledge that another generic will use their hard work to come in and undercut them on price (how do they know - because that is their business model).
8. Why hasn't research been stifled by patents in Australia? (1) Because researchers generally have no money so the court costs don't make them a target worth suing; (2) it would damage a companies reputation which would damage their bottom line as doctors etc might no longer recommend their drug or treatment; (3) up until a couple of years ago everyone thought their was an implied research exemption in the Patents Act because it didn't seem to fit into the definition of "exploit". Why has WEHI, the top medical institute in Australia come out also rejecting the amendments to the Act?
9. If the proposed amendments are such a good thing, then why has Ian Frazer (Australian of the Year and Gardasil vaccine inventor) now come out against the politicians he was originally supporting and said in his submission to the Senate that the amendments are too broad and his cervical cancer vaccine wouldn't have patent protection under these changes (and therefore would never have existed if the changes came in before he invented it as Merck wouldn't have put up the multi-millions to develop it).
10. If you want more, let me know.
In summary, the amendments are too broad, they won't do what they were intended to do, all the researchers who have a clue know it, the biotech industry knows it, big pharma is ready to pull their products out of Australia if this goes through, the lawyers will be the winners from all the additional cases that will go through the court, and the public will suffer. What a joke Heffernan

Oh LOL, donut, scary and misinformed people on a blog site? Where have you been?

However I consider myself neither scary nor fully misinformed.

Much of what you have written is currently irrelevant, including the submission by Ian Frazer, currently considered a 'winner' under the current patenting system.
There are many other submissions that support the bill, including from organisations such as

Human Genetics Society of Australasia
Australian Reproductive Health Alliance
Cancer Voices NSW
Breast cancer Action Group NSW

just to name a few, available from here:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/patent_amendment/submissions.htm

It is interesting to note that many, such as the The Royal College of Pathologists of Australia
that don't support many of the amendments as they stand but fully support the intent of the bill and believe that ongoing process of refining the amendments should take place.

A major source of concern, and I am by no means alone in this comes from the statement from IP Australia to the Senate Inquiry into gene patents:

"A patent over a gene sequence does not equate to ownership of that sequence. A patent is a right to restrain others from using or exploiting the claimed invention without the patentee's permission".
This has serious implications for the making of medical diagnoses.

This is not about manufactured drugs. Large multinational comapnies often make noises about not amking their products available if they don't 'get their way'. This is understandable, after all they are a business that wants to protect their revenue stream.

On the other hand, if they have a revenue stream, they will continue to do business. If people die because they chuck what the public (i.e. the scary and misinformed) percieve as a hissy fit, they will lose revenue either way.

Lastly, the genetic landscape of discovery is rapidly changing and diagnostic development is about to become a whole lot cheaper and easier to provide. We seriously need to prepare out legal landscape to keep up and help innovation.

Heffernan may be a joke, but there are plenty of well informed people who are not currently laughing.