E-drug: Re: New leadership in WHO (7)
----------------------------------------------------------
There seems to be a sort of a consensus among participants in this
discussion about the new executive director in charge of (i.e.) the
essential drugs programme. It's a pity that we don't hear more critical
sounds here on e-drug.
That we should give Scholtz a chance is not an issue here, we simply
don't have a choice. The argument that is made in the BMJ editorial is
quite clear. Let me quote the editorial in the BMJ for you:
"... and one appointment in particular is causing concern. Michael
Scholtz, who is to be responsible for health technology, will be in charge
of the action programme on essential drugs, the WHO's key initiative to
provide poorer countries with appropriate and affordable drugs. Dr Scholtz
comes from the pharmaceutical industry and has little experience of the
developing world. Dr Brundtland has portrayed the appointment as providing a
liaison between the industry and the WHO. Dr Scholtz will have to prove his
allegiance at a tough time for world health, when the development of
effective but expensive drugs for AIDS has brought to a head the north-south
fight over drug patent rights." (BMJ 1998;317:296)>
The issue is here that somebody having a background in marketing in a
transnational pharmaceutical company will be held responsible for WHO's
programme on safeguarding and improving equal access to affordable
drugs. If Brundtland has portrayed the appointment as providing a
liaison between the industry and the WHO this is certainly raising
concern, because Scholtz has his network in the Western-based
pharmaceutical multinational industry.
History has shown us that we should be very critical and careful with
involvement of transnational companies in public issues. When issues
such as equity, accessibility and affordability of drugs are concerned,
commercial interests almost always threatens them.
I agree with the idea offered by some of the participants in this
discussion. They propose to think of criteria that could be used to
decide on the performance of the new executive director.
I think one important criterium is the 'revised drug strategy'. This
WHA-resolution was withdrawn in Geneva in May this year and referred
back to the Board. Because of the controversy about public health over
trade (TRIPs) the assembly (Committee A) couldn't decide on the exact
contents. Which is a loss because besides the issue on TRIPs the new
revised drug strategy contained many strong issues on for example drug
promotion and drug donations. I think that the contents and the
acceptance of the revised drug strategy for the next WHA in May 1999 are
criteria for the management by Scholtz. The criterium therefore should
be that Scholtz will have to find a balance between industry's and
consumers' interests and concerns in the new revised drug strategy to be
proposed.
Is someone in this discussion wanting to propose additional criteria?
Regards,
Mark Raijmakers