# E-DRUG: Re: New leadership in WHO (7)

**URL:** <https://talk.edrugplus.org/t/e-drug-re-new-leadership-in-who-7/3263>\
**Category:** e-drug\
**Created:** [August 13, 1998, 8:37pm UTC](https://talk.edrugplus.org/t/e-drug-re-new-leadership-in-who-7/3263 "1998-08-13T20:37:36Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mark\_Raijmakers\_Wemo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@Mark\_Raijmakers\_Wemo](https://talk.edrugplus.org/u/Mark_Raijmakers_Wemo)\
**Post date:** [August 13, 1998, 8:37pm UTC](https://talk.edrugplus.org/t/e-drug-re-new-leadership-in-who-7/3263/1 "1998-08-13T20:37:36Z")

</div>

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