A groundbreaking ruling within our pharmaceutical industry has taken place, as the Rawalpindi Drug Court has handed down imprisonment and heavy fines to the CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), an internationally acclaimed pharmaceutical company, for their involvement in producing a substandard drug named Septran.

The verdict has stirred debate in the entire health sector, but it has also put a spotlight on the importance of upholding stringent regulations in our pharmaceutical companies. The industry is heavily regulated globally for a reason – consumers entrust their well-being to the efficacy and safety of these medications. One of the biggest advantages of living in Pakistan is the accessibility and cost of healthcare. It is considered a fundamental human right, and the accessibility of medication should not come at the cost of quality. The entire point of price controls ensure that we do not end up like the US, where life-saving drugs like insulin are unaffordable without insurance. For the sake of comparison, a single vial of insulin costs over $100 in the US, as compared to Pakistan where it can be bought for as low as $5. Pakistan can provide its citizens with this accessibility using price controls, but this increases the temptation for pharmaceutical companies to compromise on quality or hoard medicine to maximise profits.

Straying from regulatory standards not only jeopardizes public health but undermines the integrity of behind our control mechanisms themselves. Patients who are fighting for their lives do not have the time to do research on every medicine they take, and they place their blind faith in companies to not tamper with material quality or hoard medicines to take advantage of them by charging an inflated price. It is understandable that multiple shareholders rely on these companies to earn a profit, but putting lives at risk is not the way to go about this.

Inevitably, the pharmaceutical industry will rally to challenge the punishment meted out by the court, but it is imperative to establish a precedent that dissuades negligence and ensures that our regulations are followed to a tee.

Given the vested interests at stake here, our courts must ensure that their decisions are not affected by any potential backlash. This decision is bigger than a single CEO; it is a necessary deterrent that will send a signal to the industry that dodging regulatory responsibilities will not be punished with a slap on the wrist.