Great points Francisco, Wafa, Aram and Jose. In summarizing your points I would like to highlight the legal provision in the ICESCR Art. 15 that Aram mentioned. While it is the right of the innovators "To benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author", it is also the right of everyone to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications". Obviously, the solution as well as the challenge, is to strike the balance between the two. While Jose is right in terms of cautioning against deincentivising companies by diluting patent protection, Francisco, Aram and Wafa are also right that economic profits must not come at the cost of human lives.
In fact, the exceptions in TRIPS Agreement were made precisely because there was an agreement amongst States that public health should not be a casualty of the IPR regime. The attempt to figure out some sort of a happy balance is, unfortunately, not easy at all.
I would like to provoke you further for critical reflection. Art. 15 of the ICESCR talks about inventors benefitting from moral and material interests resulting from their inventions. However, it does not lay down the scope of how such benefits must accrue. That is done by the IPR regime that lays down criteria such as exclusion of competitors to produce the patented product for 20 years. One could argue, therefore, that the TRIPS regime is a lex specialis and by breaking the balance required, it is in conflict with human rights regime that requires not only that balance to be maintained, but also requires access to medicines as a human right obligation on States as well. As students of International Law, a very important question in this regards is as follows:
Does human rights law trump IPR law? In other words, if obligations of States under human rights law are breached because of IPR obligations, should the conflicting IPR obligations be superseded by the former?