The second proposal that the government of Canada "take away the marketing rights for another product that the company sells in Canada," is flawed, particularly for ethical reasons. During the five Round Table sessions, a recurrent theme was the need not to pit one disease against another. The following question was distributed to participants before the fifth Round Table session: "in the event that Health Canada did not agree with the level of compassionate access Glaxo-Wellcome was providing for a new anti-retroviral, would the HIV/AIDS community be firmly behind a government decision to revoke Glaxo-Wellcome's notice of compliance for 3TC?" James Kreppner, Canadian Haemophilia Society, stated:
Certainly I think the proposal envisions a drug being chosen that perhaps has many competitors in the market and perhaps even has nothing whatsoever to do with AIDS and whose lack is not likely to have a significant impact on people's health.(1)
(1) Meeting No. 3, 1 May 1996, p. 10.
At first consideration, this response does not sound unreasonable, however, who decides which notice of compliance will be revoked? Who takes responsibility for the decision that a cream to treat psoriasis will be taken off the market rather than an ointment for ring-worm if the parent company refuses to grant compassionate access to its experimental cancer drug? Who makes the moral decision which physical ailments will be pitted against each other?
It was noted that this proposal is in opposition to the spirit of the Food and Drugs Act. The Act prohibits the sale of drugs that are not of proven safety and efficacy. Further, it would be in violation of The Department of Health and Welfare Act, in that it would hinder the ability of the Minister to promote and preserve the health of Canadians.