Who is pulling the strings of WHO? - EDITORIAL

he United Nations Organisation was set up after the Second World War with the vision of “turning swords into ploughshares and spheres into pruning hooks.”
While the primary aim was to prevent war, the UN goals also included world poverty alleviation, the battle against environmental pollution and global warming and social justice issues including the provision of food, shelter and clothing, healthcare and education for all.

To what extent the UN has moved toward this vision and goals has been regularly challenged with the five big powers – the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France - repeatedly using their veto to prevent the UN from getting actively involved in conflict resolution. During the past few decades, the UN is also known to have run short of funds for its work and the activities of important affiliated organisations such as the World Health Organisation (WHO).

According to a report in the Times of India, the WHO is drawing sharp criticism from public health organisations for its participation in a pharmaceutical industry backed conference, which they say aims to serve only business interests. At the 67th World Health Assembly in Geneva, public health organisations had objected to the WHO’s participation in the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH), which they describe as “a de facto standard setting body set up by transnational pharmaceutical industry to serve their business interests”.

Raising the bar on manufacturing standards and using these standards to keep out companies from developing countries has been of great concern especially to the Indian pharmaceutical industry which exports 50% of its $10 billion annual generic medicine production, the newspaper said. A statement issued by Medicus Mundi International Network (MMIN) and the People’s Health Movement (PHM) said that while ICH sought to raise the bar on acceptable manufacturing standards and to globalise these, higher standards beyond a point, did not add to medicines quality and public health outcomes.

It adds to the cost of manufacturing and is a barrier to the entry of generics in low and middle income countries (L&MIC). (ICH) in which majority of the WHO member countries have no voting rights is dominated by pharmaceutical industry groups.  The International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), closely involved with ICH since its inception, host the ICH secretariat in Geneva. IFPMA participates in the steering committee of the ICH as a non-voting member.

Meanwhile in Sri Lanka, health rights groups allege the TNCs have influenced Health Ministry officials and even some medical consultants to delay for more than 35 years legislation to implement Professor Senaka Bibile’s essential medicines concept. Through this concept, the number of medicinal drugs being imported could be reduced to about 1,000 so that quality drugs could be made available to the people at affordable prices. Instead, we have a deadly tragedy where some 15,000 medicinal drugs have been registered for import and prescription.

As a result Sri Lanka is losing hundreds of millions of dollars on the import of thousands of non-essential drugs under highly expensive brand names. The pharmacies are overloaded with drugs and there is no way to maintain quality control or post marketing surveillance. Health rights groups say the Rajapaksa government should reject this medical neo-colonialism and implement legislation for a National Medicinal Drugs Policy.