E-drug: Re: WHO and the Pharmaceutical Industry (cont'd)
----------------------------------------------------------
Dear All,
I also understand that the representative from MSD will be working in the
tobacco free initiative. Perhaps someone from WHO can clarify this and give
information about her job description, who took the initiative, how
possible conflict of interest is going to be dealt with, what guidelines
WHO uses in general to decide to accept representatives from the
commercial sector as a staff member.
I do not agree with Richards proposal to have a person of an NGO as a kind
of balance. We cannot pretend that public interest NGOs have the same
resources as the commercial sector. For organisations like HAI, BUKO and
WEMOS it would be impossible to pay the cost for a Geneva based WHO staff
member.
But more importantly it is not their role, no more as it is the
pharmaceutical industry's role to be part of an organisations whose main
mandate it is to protect and promote health.
Pharmaceutical products, when essential, affordable, available and used
correctly are significant products needed in health care. But we cannot
deny the fact that the pharmaceutical industry's main mission lies in
satisfying the shareholders. This is one of the main reasons why their
products are often not essential, not affordable or available for large
parts of the world's population and promoted in such a way that it
encourages irrational drug use.
Public interest NGO's like HAI, MSF, ISDB and many others cooperate with
WHO on the basis of a clear understanding of each organisation's
responsibilities, missions and a recognition of the need for independence.
An important prerequisite is that while dealing with WHO staff we would
like to know whether we are talking to a person who is an international
civil servant accountable to a public organisation or a person whose main
loyalty lies with the commercial sector and is seen as their "ambassador".
Dr. Brundtland mentioned in her inaugural speech to the World health
Assembly last year that she would like to see "one WHO". This WHO's
credibility is harmed by arrangements like this. I hope that WHO will
rethink the decision and formulate clear principles for cooperation with
the commercial sector that include strict rules to avoid conflict of
interest and protection of independence. All the partnerships and
collaborative efforts that are presently being developed with WHO will
benefit from this.
Ellen 't Hoen