“States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services” (Convention on the Rights of a Child, Article 24, Section 1).

Every country in southern Africa has ratified the Convention on the Rights of a Child, from which the preceding quote is taken.  However, 470,000 children in sub-Saharan Africa die of AIDS each year, ninety percent of which got the disease from their mothers (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/aids/stories/women.children/).  These transmissions of HIV from mother to child could be significantly reduced, if not wiped out, by drugs that are currently on the market.  Yet governments all over the world, from southern Africa to the United States, are trying to stop these drugs from ever reaching the vast majority of children who need them.  The Convention states, “States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures: (a) To diminish infant and child mortality; (b) To ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children with emphasis on the development of primary health care; (c) To combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care, through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution; (d) To ensure appropriate pre-natal and post-natal health care for mothers” (CRC, Article 24, Section 2).  Yet countries that are bound to this treaty are actively opposing the distribution of life-saving anti-retroviral drugs to their children.
    HIV is an incurable, deadly disease, and while there are many drugs on the market to treat HIV/AIDS and the infections that accompany the disease, most of the people it afflicts have no access to these incredibly expensive drugs.  The most effective way to combat HIV is to prevent its transmission.  Preventing the spread of HIV is rather simple, since it is spread only through contact with bodily fluids.  Prevention techniques include the proper disposing of needles and other equipment in a health care setting, not using illegal intervenes drugs, and protected sex (sex with a condom).  Why then, if these simple rules to prevention are known, has this deadly disease spread to epidemic proportions in Africa?  The answers lie in ignorance, fear, and misogynistic societal structures.  However, even if these problems were dispelled, one major route of HIV transmission would still be threatening the population: mother to child transmission.  The transmission of the virus that causes HIV from a mother to her child in the birthing process or through breast milk is one of the biggest threats facing children in Africa today.  More than 500,000 babies were infected in 1999 by their mothers -- most of them in sub-Saharan Africa (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/aids/stories/overview/).  Yet anti-retroviral drugs that prevent this transmission are available.  Dr Costa Gazi in South Africa describes the effect of an anti-retroviral drug, "You give the Nevirapine to women in labour, and then three drops are given to the baby after birth, and that's it! One tablet for the mother, three drops for the baby, end of story! You can save half the babies that would have been born with HIV" (http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/africa/2000/aids_in_africa/casestudy_sa.stm).  It sounds so simple.  So what is stopping these countries, countries who in the Convention on the Right of the Child have an obligation to "ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being" (Article 3, Section 2), from distributing the life-saving anti-retroviral drugs?  These answers lie in money and politics.

  Expensive anti-retroviral drugs are protected by patents, and drug companies will fight to the death for these patents before they will give up their "intellectual property," even if it would mean saving millions of lives.  International patent regulations allow the creator of a drug to have a monopoly over its production, keeping generic, cheaper versions of the drug out of the market and many times cutting off access to the afflicted populations.  This morally suspect idea of putting profit before the sanctity of human life makes drug companies easy scapegoats for the blame connected to the AIDS epidemic.  However, the situation is not as clear-cut as it seems.  First of all, there is a loophole in international patent law that allows for a compulsory license to produce patented drugs if it is shown that it is a national medical emergency.  Yet southern African countries have not taken advantage of this loophole, a symptom that maybe there are more than patents here at work. The drug companies claim that "for these [anti-retroviral] drugs, Africa is a patent desert. Patents are simply not an obstacle to access in almost every sub-Saharan African nation" (PhRMA, http://www.globaltreatmentaccess.org/content/press_releases/a01/101701_FT_Patents_amir.html).  While this might be an overstatement, patents are surely not the only obstacle to drug access in southern Africa.  Poverty and a lack of infrastructure are two major barriers in the fight to get the drugs to the pregnant mothers and children who need them.  In many of the afflicted countries, even if the patent restrictions were eliminated, lifesaving drugs would still be out of reach. For countries that spend less than ten dollars per person a year on health care, even the cheapest AIDS cocktail, a generic version produced in India selling for 350 dollars, is completely unrealistic.  Lack of infrastructure also is a major problem in the distribution of anti-retroviral drugs in southern Africa.  For even if suddenly enough drugs to help the entire afflicted population magically appeared free of charge, the lack of a structured health care system would make it impossible to distribute these drugs throughout the nation.

    The drug companies cannot be entirely blamed for the lack of access to drugs like Nevirapine in southern Africa.  A combination of patent law, poverty, and lack of infrastructure contribute to the problem.  Yet, millions of African children are being infected by their mothers, and the fact that the drug existed to save at least half of them but is monetarily and physically out of reach is appalling. This is where the international community must step in.  The Convention on the Rights of the Child says, "States Parties undertake to promote and encourage international co-operation with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the right recognized in the present article. In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries."  This is not just Africa's problem.  The nations of southern Africa have neither the ability nor the will to deal with this epidemic, and the Convention makes it very clear that it is now the responsibility of the international community to make sure that these children are protected.