28th January To the Director General and Executive Board of the World Health Organization,. We write to you, as members of the global. Thirteenth General Programme of Work, – WHO Impact Human resources update, including on the global internship programme. EB/ 21 January | The UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/UNICEF/World Bank Special Programme WHO updates guidance to help healthcare workers prevent postpartum.
2019 Organization World Health Letter UPDATE: January
This, we firmly believe, should pave the way for the WHO to review its initial statement recommending that researchers and governments should not collaborate with us.
The absence of a link is telling. That is a bold claim implying that PMI exerts operational control over the Foundation. A claim for which no evidence is provided. The board of directors of the FSFW is in charge. Have you reviewed these documents and, if so, on what basis do you think they are inadequate or, alternatively, that the Foundation or PMI are acting in contravention of their legal framework?
Are you taking on trust the assertions made about PMI? They are far from uncommon, but are they right? For example, how much litigation is PMI currently involved in? We have no litigation on cigarettes pending anymore except a minor case in the Philippines where a municipality passed a ban on cigarette sales. We support strict regulation of combustible products in the context of risk-proportionate regulatory frameworks that differentiate less harmful alternatives.
As far as I am aware, it has also withdrawn from involvement in WTO challenges to plain packaging for combustibles, except in one legacy case where it cannot withdraw for contractual reasons. There is one other WTO case I am aware of: Of course, I might be wrong about this. But it would be you signing the letter, not me — and you are responsible for its content. The letter concentrates exclusively on the provenance of the financing of FSFW, but it does nothing to show how its activities — several listed in the FSFW open letter — are, in fact, harmful to public health in some way.
In my view, these activities are beneficial, and it would, therefore, be harmful to stop them. So in trying to prevent the FSFW going about its work, you would be preferring ignorance over whatever knowledge FSFW creates and you would prefer its funds to be returned to shareholders or wasted. In my view, you really should not sign a letter like this until you can identify substantive objections to the FSFW programme.
Have you done that? Have you, for example, reviewed its recent requests for proposals? PMI states that it is aiming to change its business model — from selling combustion products to non-combustion. A future that does not include cigarettes. And we want to get there as quickly as possible.
Our ambition is to convince all adult smokers who would otherwise continue smoking cigarettes to switch to scientifically substantiated smoke-free products, which are a much better alternative for them. Why would that be a bad thing? You presumably know that PMI is a publicly quoted company, meaning it must not mislead its investors.
So it would inevitably be a cigarette vendor for some years and it would make little difference to health if it stopped unilaterally — others would step in to exploit the opportunity.
What matters is the attempt at a transition that will be driven by consumers. The purpose of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World is to improve global health by ending smoking in this generation. Ending smoking means eliminating the use of cigarettes and other forms of combustible tobacco worldwide. Why would it be a bad thing for a company to have a good objective and to fund an independent non-profit to provide insights into achieving it?
Yet it is included in the definition of tobacco control in the FCTC Article 1 d and commands considerable support among experts with no competing interests.
Innovation in tobacco control: If you are opposing harm reduction because tobacco companies make the products involved and might make money, then I respectfully suggest you have your priorities wrong. If that is the case, the corollary is that you would rather tobacco companies only made cigarettes, and more people died as a result, as long as the companies made less money.
The main argument of the activist letter is that the Foundation has an association with a tobacco company, so it must, a priori , be a bad thing. The letter reaches for the comforting certainties of Article 5. However, there is something important happening in the nicotine market: The harm reduction approach is synergistic, not antagonistic, to conventional tobacco control MPOWER measures because it creates new options to respond to the incentives and pressures of tobacco control policies.
Public health is a tough discipline, with the lives of thousands, maybe millions, of other people on the line. So there should be a strong duty of curiosity: This was never right, by the way.
Even in or it was already apparent that a tobacco product, snus, made by a tobacco company, Swedish Match, was having a dramatic beneficial effect on smoking in Nordic and Scandinavian countries. Would you be the enemy of that sort of innovation? Does this letter really make an argument or consider the issues carefully? Or would you just be buying into a flash mob designed to intimidate researchers, delegitimise its staff and marginalise its work — not based on the quality or value of what it does, but on its origins?
I have written about my concerns about tobacco control mob behaviour previously:. My impression is that international tobacco control is becoming less about health and more about the tobacco industry. I have done my fair share of that, but this is happening at exactly the moment where the entire industry is facing disruption and major changes are possible by looking at the situation more imaginatively and with an open mind. WHF and Partners say no to tobacco industry policy interference.
This is the same sort of stuff, but I will confine myself to providing unwelcome advice to those considering signing the one above. I have no conflict of interest with respect to the Foundation, though I wish it well and hope it succeeds, I have no plans to apply to be on its staff or board or to apply for grant funding. I have no conflict of interest with respect to PMI. Simply opposing anything done by, or in some way associated with, a declared enemy is a seldom a good strategy.
I think a better one is to agree on a goal maximum practical reduction in tobacco-caused disease and death, for instance and strategically pursue it. Thus, the actions of other players can be evaluated in relation to that goal. Disruptive innovation on nicotine and the disarray it is causing in the cigarette industry creates huge opportunities to creatively exploit. A simple logic model says the FSFW can be either genuine or a sham, and we can either support or oppose.
If we act like we support it, there is a big win by either facilitating our health goals or revealing a sham.
If it is simply opposed, we only have downsides — health loses if it was genuine, but also loses if it was a public relations ploy that never gets shown to be one. To what degree the abstinence only activists attacking the FSFW are involved with the pharmaceutical industry? Millions of dollars are involved — and not much accountability with it. The overall effect may well be to worsen the tobacco epidemic first by deflecting smokers from using proven smoking cessation strategies and shifting them to e-cigs, which, for most smokers, reduce successful smoking cessation, and second by deflecting discussion from measures opposed by the tobacco industry.
E-cigarettes are expanding the nicotine market by attracting youth who were at low risk of initiating nicotine use with conventional cigarettes, but many of whom are now moving on to those conventional cigarettes. Even if they do not progress, promoting nicotine use to youth is bad public health policy. EUPHA responded to the public consultation on excise duties applied to manufactured tobacco and the possible taxation of novel products.
We invite our partners and members to also respond the this consultation. We believe that European funding for public health remains as important as ever and are convinced that it has significant added value. Read our statement for more reflections on the post budget proposal.
Migrants and ethnic minorities MEM often face serious inequities concerning both their state of health and their access to good quality health services. These inequities are increasingly being brought to light by public health researchers, but action to tackle them has lagged behind. To ensure that adequate attention is paid to the determinants of MEM health and the problems of service delivery that can confront these groups, health systems need to become more inclusive.
For the statement, please click here. These 17 goals are to be achieved by One of the goals SDG 3 is dedicated to health i. In order to find out how Europe and European countries are doing, some 2,5 years after the adoption of the SDGs, we raise the question — how is Europe progressing towards the health-related Sustainable Development Goals — or even better — how is Europe progressing towards what we might call the Sustainable Health Goals?
The vision for health in the EUropean Union: We believe that a Europe where all people are as healthy as they can be throughout their lives is possible. A Europe that promotes well-being for all people of all ages, and where people can live, work and age in sustainable and healthy environments.
A Europe that supports timely access to affordable, high quality healthcare for all. Our common asks from the European Commission: The Lisbon Strategy includes a target of adding two healthy life years on average across the EU by - a target that still needs to be met. We need strong political leadership from the European Commission to achieve this goal. This requires a Commission Vice-President and a Directorate General dedicated to health,to ensure that health protection and promotion is guaranteed across all European Commission portfolios.
This requires a Commission Vice-President and a Directorate General dedicated to health, to ensure that health protection and promotion is guaranteed across all European Commission portfolios.
This allowed EUPHA to gain a better insight into future public health issues allowing us to advocate for a more effective and well-founded re distribution of resources for primary and secondary prevention. The results also clearly emphasize the importance of a European approach to public health, as many — if not all — of the listed threats can be targeted through supranational policy measures, exchange of good practices and sharing of knowledge of evidence-informed interventions.
Read her speech here. In March we wrote to British American Tobacco and Philip Morris, following court orders in the USA requiring them to issue corrective statements to inform the American public about how these companies had misled them for decades. BAT has now replied, rejecting our request. We publish its letter here.
First, BAT makes no attempt to respond to the specific concerns that led to the US judgement, relating to misleading the public. It seems that we are to believe that, even if the tobacco industry sought to undermine the evidence on smoking-related harm and the addictive nature of nicotine in the USA, it did not do so in Europe.
Second, despite seeking recourse when possible to international trade agreements as it seeks to circumvent national laws on tobacco control, it relies on the territorial limitations of American jurisprudence to reject our request. In both cases, our members can judge these arguments for themselves. Our view is that they provide more evidence on why, as set out in Article 5.
In leading tobacco companies were required to tobacco companies publish corrective statement advertisements in the U. Consequently, we have written to both British American Tobacco and Philip Morris International to ask them to take the same measures in Europe. Our letters are published below. Read the full statement here. An integrated theory-driven program on health workforce research in the European research agenda adds value especially in the following areas: This consultation on EU funds specifically concerns the area of public health, where EUPHA argues strongly that European funding remains necessary and has added value.
Please click here for the statement. This E-collection reflects on challenges in vaccination in the European region and includes a selection of scientific peer-reviewed articles recently published in the European Journal of Public Health.
The interview can be found here. Vaccination is one of the most powerful and effective public health interventions known. It has saved millions of lives and brought huge benefits to public and individual health.
As a direct result, many infections that used to affect the most vulnerable, including children, have disappeared or are extremely rare. Scientific evidence of the beneficial effect of vaccines is overwhelming; there is unequivocal evidence going back decades that vaccines have been one of the major drivers of the decreasing burden of infectious diseases. Yet we in Europe cannot be complacent. Vaccination coverage with MMR measles, mumps, and rubella is already too low in several countries in Europe, leading to outbreaks of measles, with cases in children needing hospitalisation or even dying.
Everywhere, vaccine hesitancy threatens the achievement of sufficient vaccine coverage to protect populations from infections. Austria was, in , one of the last European countries to decide to adopt a general ban on smoking, to be implemented in With the discussions of coalition partners to set up a new government, this general ban on smoking is back on the discussion table.
In den 13 Jahren, die seither vergangen sind, ist ein Land nach dem anderen dem irischen Beispiel gefolgt. Alcohol is a topic high on the agenda of the presidency and this e-collection serves as a robust evidence-base and valuable resource for public health researchers, advocates, and policy makers across Europe. The statement to the European Commission on the public consultation on the evaluation of the EU Framework for national Roma integration strategies up to The Stockholm Declaration on sustaining health and resilient communities is published at the Stockholm conference.
This Declaration was set up by the European Public Health Association and the Swedish Association for Social Medicine and invites other NGOs to fully engage in collaboration across professions to promote sustainable and healthy communities throughout Europe and beyond.
If you are interested in joining the Stockholm Declaration, contact us at office eupha. The authors end their comment with a call for action: Scientists should reject the siren songs of involvement in tobacco industry promotions. Specifically, we are concerned that there is insufficient attention to public health research.
Such research, seeking to develop population-level responses to the growing burden of diseases, and especially of multi-morbidity, can offer innovative means to prevent and protect health by tackling some of the major drivers of the overall burden of disease. Please click here for the full statement. This report — set up by a working group within the EUPHA section on Food and nutrition — calls for all European states to establish a statutory Sustainable Nutrition Task Force, that considers and includes the wider aspects of food.
EUPHA calls upon the EU institutions to ensure that public health and health systems research are given due importance in order to enable European solutions, informed by evidence, to assist policy making in these challenging times. The Vienna Declaration calls on all parts of the public health community, in Europe and beyond, working at all levels, local, national, regional and global, to recognise the multi-tiered determinants of health and opportunities for action. We will include this in our list of supporting organisations.
Spread the Vienna Declaration: The European Union should urgently come forward with a new target and measures to cut serious road injuries, according to public health and medical experts from across Europe in a letter sent today to the president of the European Commission Jean Claude Juncker. The guiding principles of the Action plan are in line with our four pillars: We cannot invest in future generations while ignoring the sexual and reproductive health needs of all people — young and old, rich and poor.
Including sexual and reproductive health in the Agenda confirms the importance of this aspect of health. Public health activities in the European Region must create the conditions under which people can improve their health and wellbeing, as set out in this Action Plan. EUPHA supports the vision, goals and objectives of the Action Plan, which are consistent with a public health approach to the entire spectrum of health and wellbeing and not only sexual and reproductive health.
Consultancy Tender Job at World Health Organization - in Uganda
Home · Updates · Countries · Disasters · Topics · Organizations · Jobs · Training. 22 Jan The World Health Organization Iraq delivers four trucks loaded with kits and medical supplies to Baghdad 22 January – Responding to the need of the His Excellency the Governor of Diyala instructed to send a letter of . Really?» January 27th, pave the road for partnership with the World Health Organization (WHO). Activist letter. But the Foundation is not trying to do that. 24 January cannabis-related substances and whether the World Health Organization (WHO) should a separate letter under the same date as this letter. looked forward to an updated report on cannabis by the Expert Committee.