Public Health & Human Rights

A new resource from the New York Academy of Sciences and the UN Millenium Project

Select the link below to get to a site just launched last month called, "Scientists Without Borders."

From their site, their aim is "to mobilize and coordinate science-based activities that improve quality of life in the developing world."

It is a promising site with an impressive list of partners and a site worth exploring.

http://scientistswithoutborders.nyas.org

Friday light: Motivational Deficiency Syndrome

I would have attached this to the earlier post about Disease Mongering had I known about it. Thankful to finally have a name to attach to the ailment that so frequently strikes on hot summer afternoons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoppJOtRLe4

Conflict between government and public health/human rights work

I received what I found to be a very interested article from my brother-in-law about human rights, public health, and the roles of government and health professionals. The article, published in a respected Asian magazine, argues that state governments are frequently in conflict with public health professionals and human rights advocates. As the author writes, “the state is antagonistic to public health professionals….” Citing several examples, the author argues convincingly that there is sometimes an inherent conflict between the findings of public health/human rights and the government’s desire to protect itself (for example, studies showing how socioeconomic conditions or political conditions are negatively impacting health/rights).

For me, the article was very interesting because it contradicted what I take for granted every day—that government does public health well and is in the best position to improve the health of the population. In the U.S., Canada, and many countries of Western Europe, the local and/or national government is very much viewed as the promoter/protector of the public’s health (less true regarding human rights), and seeing this article contradict that perspective so strongly was, at first, surprising.

The author's perspective did make sense after thinking about it and putting on a non-Western lens. But, the article was a helpful reminder of at least two things. First, it reminded me of the reality that there are many governments that are not interested in the public’s health or human rights. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the article reminded me that, within many countries, there may rightly be suspicion about policies, programs, etc that are supported by the local government even when those programs are viewed by outside public health professionals as sound health or human rights programs. For a specific example, the author of the article was surprisingly skeptical about the polio eradication campaign in his country, a worldwide campaign spearheaded by the World Health Organization, Rotary International, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the UN Children’s Fund. I found it intriguing to think about the possibility that, even though not a specific public health campaign designed by his state government, the mere support of his government seemed to bring great suspicion to its activities and goals.

I’m left thinking more about how best to do public health/human rights in areas of the world where governments are viewed suspiciously, and I’m reminded of the implications and complications of partnerships. At the very least, I’m reminded that getting outside of our own familiar cultural context is important as we do the work of public health and human rights.

Click here to read the original article (accessed June 2008): http://www.epw.org.in/epw//uploads/articles/12281.pdf

Global Health and Disease Mongering

The topic of disease mongering, or essentially scaring people into thinking that they are abnormal or in need of medical treatment (usually done by pharmaceutical companies), is one that has interested me for a number of years. As one working in the field of vaccines and vaccine-preventable diseases I find the topic of disease mongering a relevant one. Frankly, one rarely hears that phrase in connection with the vaccine world (at least among public health professionals), although I know that some in the general public think of some vaccines in that way (thinking of the chickenpox vaccine).

There is a hesitancy among public health professionals to question new treatments, new vaccines, etc. Rather, they are usually simply promoted as a new and good option. And certainly the media are rarely helpful in taking the public critically through new public health or medical options. But, at least in the field of public health, it seems to me that we ought to be especially willing to critically think about new drugs, etc because while there may be some similar goals between pharmaceutical companies and public health (improving health), there also are some fundamental differences, key among them being the drug companies' drive for profit.

Public health professionals, at the local, state, and federal levels have something of a unique opportunity to critically think about, and impact, these disease mongering issues because public health frequently has the trust of the public, they usually are not paid by pharmaceutical companies, and they are uniquely charged with improving the health of their local population. Whatever actions we, as public health professionals, or the public ultimately decide to take regarding new health-related interventions, let's hope that we have critically examined the options, the source of the information, and the health benefit before deciding one way or the other.

Click here for a very interesting, and newly published, article on this topic called, "Disease Mongering is Now Part of the Global Health Debate"http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050106#journal-pmed-0050106-b008

Also, wondering whether that recent news report was mostly disease mongering? Check here:http://www.healthnewsreview.org/