Today AIDS activists and those who oppose drug patents from around the globe are expected to send a letter to the new head of the World Health Organization criticizing her for cautioning Thailand against canceling patents of Western pharmaceutical companies.

Thailand’s health minister has threatened to cancel the patents of Western companies and instead to buy cheap copies — a practice known as issuing compulsory licenses — of cardiovascular, leukemia, cholesterol, and HIV drugs. An unusual source has spoken up for big pharma: the WHO director general, Dr. Margaret Chan of China.

The Thailand health ministry, following advice of anti-intellectual property activists, plans to use copies produced by the Government Pharmaceutical Organization of Sanofi-Aventis’ heart drug, Plavix; Abbott’s HIV treatment, Kaletra, and Merck’s HIV drug, Stocrin. And over the weekend, it threatened 11 new drugs including Pfizer’s Atrovastatin anti-cholesterol drug and Novartis’ Glivec cancer drug. By so doing, the Thailand government seeks to lower drug prices, which it claims it needs in order to treat all those suffering from HIV and heart disease.

The government and these activists are misguided, for their opposition to the patent system and their attacks on Dr. Chan will not help sustain HIV treatment around the world. Thailand’s homemade drugs are poor quality copies, which the activists, and seemingly the government itself, refuse to acknowledge. The AIDS community insists that Thailand will buy copies from India, which has better but still variable quality production.

Dr. Chan, however, is acutely aware that these copies fail to pass even the most rudimentary WHO standards, and as such they encourage drug resistance and clinical failure in patients. In a 2003 failed campaign, her predecessor promoted generic drugs of dubious quality to try and treat millions of HIV sufferers. Visiting Thailand last week, instead of supporting the government as, from a reading of their press releases and e-mail traffic the activists apparently expected, Dr. Chan said: “I’d like to underline that we have to find a right balance for compulsory licencing. We can’t be naïve about this. There is no perfect solution for accessing drugs in both quality and quantity.”

Thailand’s move actually is the latest in a long trend of countries putting industrial policy ahead of public health. The politically connected in Bangkok seem more interested in expanding home production than in treating the poor. Indeed, the Government Pharmaceutical Organization’s revenues continue to rise, alongside alleged corruption. In 2002, the auditor general, Jaruvan Maintake, said, “The purchase of drugs through GPO … gives officials the chance to reap personal benefits. … The drug purchasing process becomes untransparent, inefficient and wastes money.”

Western drugs may be more expensive than copies, but their high quality limits drug resistance and treatment failure. Originator companies also make efforts to minimize treatment failure by training medical staff to ensure patients get regular and consistent medication. In contrast, failure rates from the Government Pharmaceutical Organization’s HIV drugs top 50% in some patients. Overall, the better Western drugs and training would save money because clinical failure means much more expensive drugs and hospitalization later on.

Dr. Chan’s statement is hardly a ringing endorsement of the pharmaceutical industry’s case — suggesting only a closer look at the local and global impact of Thailand’s decision on HIV and other patients. Yet, within hours of a Bangkok Post report on her words, activists from around the world started attacking her: “It is not the role of the WHO to protect the interests of the pharmaceutical companies,” one said. “The new DG of the WHO should have stood up for the poor. … This is a bad start. She needs to educate herself about intellectual property rights” another said. “The WHO has to look more closely at its role in the global public health campaign. It must be able to stand up to the threats of big pharmaceutical companies,” a third said.

And today’s letter, sponsored by the Bangkok-based International Treatment Preparedness Coalition, attempts to persuade her to change her mind: “We are extremely disappointed by your recent comments to the Royal Thai Government. … We are writing to request that you reconsider your comments. …”

Now not only Asia but also the WHO and its member states face a crossroads on whether to uphold the patent system. They need to decide whether to support Dr. Chan in questioning Thailand’s actions.

World Trade Organization rules have made compulsory licenses available to poor countries suffering an epidemic. But Thailand is a middle-income country, and while a case may be made for HIV, heart disease, cholesterol, or leukemia are not epidemics. If the international community allows patent-busting under these circumstances, it will embolden the activist community to undermine the entire pricing structure of innovator companies, and with it the opportunity of drug discovery.

Mr. Bate is a resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute.