Comment on Post at Effect Measure
"...with the idea of sovereign national states subject to no higher authority."
Could it be that the Westphalian System has survived three hundred years is because it makes sense?
What I expect of the World Health Organization is quite simple really: honesty, integrity and full disclosure.
With respect to H5N1, instead we have had 'The Wizard of Oz' maintaining what you have just described as an illusion of authority and potential to be little more than a noisy or silent onlooker(Rwanda).
This may not be the appropriate place for this historical comment so if the comments are moderated please feel free to ignore.
If a member state believes that another state(s) is taking excessive measures to prevent importation of disease the WHO Constitution provides for the Director General to intercede at the request of the aggrieved state.
In 197? Turkey finally recognized its duty to report the presence of cholera in its borders (where it had probably been endemic for years). Bulgaria and Romania immediately banned the arrival of persons and goods from Turkey. This action was “in excess” of measures allowed under the International Health Regulations. This ban on movement of goods by the two states came at the height of the lemon season and truck were stranded with rotting lemons.
The Government of Turkey petitioned the DG under the provisions of the Constitution to intervene. The first step was mediation. A staff epidemiologist was unsuccessful in convincing the two Governments to lift the ban. The next remedy was to have a trial at WHO to determine the facts and bring about change. (If this trial were to fail, the matter would be referred to the World Court in The Hague.)
I was selected to be one of the three judges, Prof. Shigamatsu from Japan and Prof. ? from Makere University in Entebbe were the others. The meeting was convened in Salle D of the WHO Headquarters Building in Geneve. The judges sat on an elevated dais with the representatives of Bulgaria and Romania flanking the accusing Turkey. It had the element of a comic opera, most of the accusers and defendants heavily mustached.
After a fervent plea from the representative of Turkey, the government of Bulgaria withdrew its opposition. All heads turned to Romania. A recess was called and at the conclusion the Romanians said that they needed to consult Sofia.
We returned the next morning and a crestfallen Romanian announced that the radio was out of order and they would have to wait another day. Meanwhile WHO staff and I drafted an article for the Weekly Epidemiologic Record to be submitted by Bulgaria. The article stated in understated terms that the Bulgarian action was uncalled for and that it would never happen again.
Finally, on the third day the Romanians arrived with smiles and withdrew their objections. The system worked, but if it had been one of Turkey’s NATO associates that banned the lemons I doubt that Turkey would have objected!
Concerning my post above, I would add that a yearly budget of 1.6 billion dollars, seems more that enough to fulfill such small expectations.
Dave Sencer:
Thank you so much for taking the time to post. For those of us on the outside trying to understand the workings of an often opaque system any first hand account is always most welcome.
I second JJ's thanks. Indeed, I hope Dave Spencer will please tell us more whenever the spirit moves him.
Dave S.: Thanks for the added historical pespective which is very much consistent with the Westphalian framework. I second the welcome to comment further, since your perspective on many issues today would be of interest (e.g. CDC!?)
Tom: What do you mean by honesty? Does it mean revealing everything you know, regardless of other obligations? I believe strongly, as you do, that the constant "spinning" and lack of transparency are harmful to public health and WHO and they should not do it. But let's try to differentiate the issues. The question of revealing epidemiological information without the agreement of the state under the old IHR was not allowed under international law. I don't think most people are completely aware of this and tend to think of WHO as some kind of international health police. The posts today and tomorrow and probably the day after are meant to explain a little of the background.
Revere. I will read your posts with great interest.
Is there a place for honesty, integrity and full disclosure in the World Health Organization today?
I guess not.
What do I mean by honesty?
First of all I don't promise to release serological studies that I have no authority over...repeatedly...
...I don't estimate the only range of mortality for a pandemic as 2-7 million persons worldwide,knowingly misusing a CDC report that clearly states not to do exactly that under the experimental limitations...
...I don't pretend and sell myself as the "international health police" when in fact my authority is an illusion...
...and last but not least, I welcome the opportunity to discuss and explain not only the limitations of my mandate but health issues of concern with anyone who is interested; including comments on effect measure and discourse on flu wiki.
I guess this is too much to ask in return for that 1,600 million dollars.
Tom: You and I don't disagree as much as you seem to think. I have deplored WHO "spinning" here numerous times. I think it hurts them, it hurts public health and it is just plain stupid.
But WHO isn't a person, it is many people. It distresses me to see it tarred with such a broad brush when its inherent structural limitations are more serious than most people realize. I don't think they hold themselves out as the international health police but it is clear many people think they do. I would be glad of a citation where they have done this and I will change my mind.
There are struggles going on within WHO as there are always in complex agencies like that. For the most part we don't have to be concerned about them. But in this instance we do. That is why I am trying to strengthen the hand of those in WHO -- and there are many -- who understand the stakes and are trying to do the right thing. I hope to show in some upcoming posts they have made progress in the face of serious obstacles.
When we (in my view, unfairly) criticize everyone in WHO we offend, sap the strength and demoralize the good people who are trying to make change. They need our support, not contempt. Support comes from understanding their problems, which is what I am trying to do with these posts.
We need to go on criticizing them when they distort, obstruct or othrwise do things they shouldn't, as they do much too frequently. We should praise, encourage and gently push them in the right direction when we can.
I consider the senior leadership at CDC a much worse offender than WHO. They are bigger, richer and more culpable than WHO. Why they are getting a free pass from you and many others I don't know. But at CDC, too, there are some terrific people (although the number diminishes daily because of the chaotic and mismanaged situation).
OK. We've each said our piece. Let's move on from here.
WHO is leading health orgainzation in the world.its provide major support to humanity.
Tom DVM:
"….. 1.6 billion dollars, seems more that enough to fulfill such small expectations"
Is this a lot of money to coordinate global world health?
For comparison it is significantly less than we spend on Viagra, in 2004 Pfiser and competitors spent US$ 400 million on advertising erectile dysfunction drugs.
The starting gun for the 30 years war was the Defenstration of Prague, where some local officials were thrown from an upstairs window. A serendipitous dungheap broke their falls. A public health hazard if ever there was one. Seiously, those posts are a valuable insight into why we are where we are. The WHO of all organizations must be between so many rocks and hard places: coping with vested interests of governments and big pharma. Up against the combined results of poverty, climate change and the most implacable enemies of all: infectious microbes and the odd clever parasitic worm. And then - H5N1 on top of everything else. It's the toughst job and i'm glad I'm not charged with doing it. I don't think that means be uncritical, but it means have some perspective on the scale of the problems they face on our behalf.
Hi! I'm sorry. Are you looking for a Free Naughty Nati Video Go here
Naughty Naty OR here
Free Naughty Nati Porno As for me Naughty - the best girl in the world
942
betting free sports betting free sports betting free sports. student loan consolidation credit rating student loan consolidation credit rating student loan consolidation credit rating.
ugg australia is very popular.If you need buy uggs,you can come to our uggs boots on sale
I second JJ's thanks. Indeed, I hope Dave Spencer will please tell us more whenever the spirit moves him.! rolex watch?
luxury watch?
I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch I was selected to be one of the three judges, Prof. Shigamatsu from Japan and Prof. ? from Makere University in Entebbe were the others. The meeting was convened in Salle D of the WHO Headquarters Building in Geneve. The judges sat on an elevated dais with the representatives of Bulgaria and Romania flanking the accusing Turkey. It had the element of a comic opera, most of the accusers and defendants heavily mustached
Commenting by HaloScan
