[Ip-health] IQsensato: Is our Health in the Right Hands?

[Malini Aisola]

http://www.iqsensato.org/blog/2010/01/18/is-our-health-in-good-hands/

Is our Health in the Right Hands?

By Sisule F. Musungu
18 January 2010

The 126th session of the Executive Board (EB) of the World Health
Organization (WHO) meets in Geneva from Today (Monday, 18th January
2010) to Friday with a packed agenda [1]. This meeting comes in the wake
of increasing questions regarding the management and governance of the
world health body which for far too long has escaped serious public
scrutiny by hiding behind the perception that it is a technical body
whose work ordinary mortals can not understand.

A Pretence to Efficiency

The 34 Member EB would have the world believe that in just five days it
will have seriously considered over 46 specific agenda items ranging
from the Report of the Director General through to programme, budget and
administration matters, eighteen technical subjects (ranging from
sharing influenza virus and access to vaccines to international health
regulations to birth defects), financial matters, management matters,
staffing matters through to a range of progress reports. Most of these
subjects have not benefitted from any preparatory Member States
deliberations or input let alone transparent inputs from other
stakeholders.

This system of management may appear efficient but if you think so look
again and look hard. The mistakes that the EB makes, the things it does
not discuss seriously or those not discussed at all affect all of us and
we have very limited chance to hold anyone accountable for getting
observership at the EB and WHO generally appears to be harder than
becoming a doctor. There is at least a transparent and objective way to
become a doctor.

A Time to Rethink WHO Governance, Time is Running out

I have previously argued that there is an urgent need to rethink the
governance of global health and the role of WHO (See my June posting on
reforming WHO [2]). The evidence abounds but two recent examples should
be a wake up call for all.

First, serious questions have arisen with respect to the declaration of
a global pandemic with respect to H1N1. Was there sufficient medical and
scientific evidence for the declaration? Was the world health body used
to scare and intimidate governments and the global community into panic
buying of vaccines whose efficacy may have been in doubt? Did WHO use
experts whose of objectivity was questionable due to their links to the
pharmaceutical industry that stood to benefit from such a declaration?
Many more question are out there. (For the record I found the whole
thing suspicious and unscientific and I therfore have conscientiously
objected to vaccination). What is missing is the outrage that should
follow evidence that it is possible we were duped into a false panic by
those who are charged with the responsibility of our health.

The second recent development that should have anyone concerned with
global health seething is the handling of the Expert Working Group on
Research and Development Financing (EWG). This expert group was set up
by the Director General on the instructions of the Member States when
they adopted the Global Strategy and Plan of Action on Public Health,
Innovation and Intellectual Property [3] to examine the current finacing
and coordination of R&D as well as proposals for NEW and INNOVATIVE
sources of funding for R&D needs of developing countries. This is an
issue that previous efforts by the Commission on Intellectual Property
Rights, Innovation and Public Health [4](CIPIH) and the Intergovenmental
Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property
[5](IGWG) failed to resolve. What was hoped for was that the WHO
Director General and the EWG would bring an enhanced level of
seriousness, analysis, engagement and innovativeness that would take us
forward. Unfortunately and almost criminally, the EWG and the WHO
Secretariat may have taken us backwards. How?

To start with, the EWG process was secretive and opaque. The claims that
the EWG engaged with interested stakeholders or that the invitations for
written submission to the public constituted public consultations rings
hollow when one compares it to the CIPIH process or processes in other
international organisations such as the WIPO Development Agenda [6]at
the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Worst of all, there
is credible evidence that the pharmaceutical industry innapproapriately
influenced the process [7]even getting the drafts of the report and
exerting influence through what the industry has called =E2=80=9Cfriendly
members=E2=80=9D of the EWG. You would think that with such evidence an
immediate investigation would have been launched considering that the
CIPIH process faced similar attempts. If you thought so, you thought
wrong for it appears this is business as usual at WHO. If the EB does
not take this matter with the seriousness it deserves, we all should be
very worried because our health is at stake. We should all be asking is
our health in the right hands?

With respect to the EWG, it is important to remember that this process
only happened after years of pressure and efforts by developing
countries and health groups. It was not, repeat, it was not, an
initiative of the WHO Secretariat. The WHO Secretariat and experts such
as those on the EWG should therefore not be allowed to squander what is
an opportunity of a life-time.

URLs in this post:

[1] packed agenda: http://apps.who.int/gb/e/e_eb126.html
[2] See my June posting on reforming WHO:
http://www.iqsensato.org/blog/2009/06/21/global-health-governance-and-refor=
ming-the-world-health-organization/
[3] Global Strategy and Plan of Action on Public Health, Innovation and
Intellectual Property:
http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/A61/A61_R21-en.pdf
[4] Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public
Health : http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/en/
[5] Intergovenmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and
Intellectual Property : http://www.who.int/phi/en/
[6] WIPO Development Agenda :
http://www.wipo.int/ip-development/en/agenda/
[7] innapproapriately influenced the process :
http://www.keionline.org/node/718


--
Malini Aisola
Knowledge Ecology International
1621 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20009
malini.aisola@keionline.org|Tel: +1.202.332.2670|Fax: +1.202.332.2673