Suchergebnisse

'Globale Gesundheitsprobleme haben in den letzten Jahren mehr als in früheren Jahrzehnten die Aufmerksamkeit der Menschen auch in den Industrieländern erregt. Dies betraf vor allem tödliche Infektionskrankheiten: Nach der AIDS-Pandemie folgten SARS und in den vergangenen Monaten die Vogelgrippe: Auch wenn diese im Augenblick in Europa aus den Schlagzeilen geraten ist, werden aus Afrika weiter steigende Infektionszahlen gemeldet. Allerdings sind in den letzten Monaten auch wichtige Weichenstellungen im Bereich von 'Global Health Governance' erfolgt (International Health Regulations, Forschung und Entwicklung zu Medikamenten). Die veränderten globalen Rahmenbedingungen durch den Globalisierungsprozess verlangen neue Formen des politischen und finanziellen Engagements in der globalen Gesundheitspolitik, die die Möglichkeiten der bis in die 1990er-Jahre hinein diesen Sektor dominierenden internationalen Organisationen (WHO, Weltbank, UNICEF) erheblich übersteigen. Dies betrifft vor allem folgende Aspekte: Die Bedrohung durch Infektionskrankheiten aufgrund steigender Mobilität und wachsender Resistenz von Krankheitserregern gegen Antibiotika nimmt zu. Die schlechte Gesundheitssituation in armen Ländern wird als Hindernis für Entwicklung und ein Faktor für politische Instabilität wahrgenommen. Die Liberalisierung der Welthandelsordnung und vor allem das TRIPS-Abkommen implizieren zweifelhafte - vor allem an der erwarteten zahlungsfähigen Nachfrage orientierte - Anreize für medizinische Innovationsprozesse, die Patienten in armen Ländern tendenziell vernachlässigen. Als Reaktion auf globale Gesundheitsprobleme lässt sich eine erhebliche Stärkung zivilgesellschaftlicher Organisationen und die Entstehung neuartiger Organisationsformen (vor allem Global Public Private Partnerships) beobachten. Diese stärken zwar die in der globalen Gesundheitspolitik verfügbaren politischen und finanziellen Ressourcen, führen aber immer mehr zu Koordinationsproblemen.' (Autorenreferat)

This article analyses the impact of new institutional structures in global health governance (GHG) on the realization of social rights in poor countries. Focusing on the example of global HIV/AIDS politics. The article argues that new governance modes increase the participation of civil society groups and affected communities, but also that they are frequently instrumentalized by powerful actors to pursue their particular interests. In fact, increasing resources are mobilized for the fight against poverty-related diseases. The article concludes that, as the experience of HIV/AIDS politics, the conflicts around the TRIPS Agreement and the development of Global Public-Private Partnerships GPPPs suggest, GHG is characterized by a combination of moral values and material interests that does not guarantee a comprehensive realization of social rights, but which allows some progress in the fight against poverty-related diseases - a step toward realization of social rights.

Covers globalization of public health, funding for the fight against AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, health as global security challenge, and HIV/AIDS in China; 5 articles. Contents: The globalization of health, by Gro Harlem Brundtland; One effort, one goal: the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, by Tommy G. Thompson; Health as a global security challenge, by Jonathan Ban; Pre-empting an HIV/AIDS disaster in China, by Drew Thompson; The impact of SARS on China, by Xiaohong Xu.

Experience teaches that the Framework Convention on Global Health (FCGH) will need a financing facility if it is to garner widespread acceptance among low-income countries. The promise of financing is a well-established carrot to encourage countries to assume new convention-imposed obligations that will be costly to carry out. Promising to provide financing as part of an intergovernmental call for commitment also activates a rights-based approach. For donor and recipient countries, a funding facility embodies an actualization of their commitment to a convention's collective undertaking to address a given issue. Donors signal their commitment through their contributions; recipients signal commitment through their efforts to use any support received to achieve the convention's objectives. This essay highlights the need for an FCGH financing facility, provides a preliminary sketch of what it should look like, and urges the facility's creators to adopt a bold and innovative approach that draws upon, but improves, current precedents. Adapted from the source document.

ABSTRACTSome 40 years ago, the public health philosopher Dan Beauchamp suggested that 'public health should be a way of doing justice'. The argument put forward in this essay is that global health should be a way of doing global justice, by ameliorating the health inequalities that exclude many millions of people globally from enjoying a healthy life and from the benefits of a fuller inclusion in modern society. The essay develops this argument in three stages. First, it sets out some points of intersection between the politics of (global) health and competing ideas of justice. It offers a very basic typology of global health policy and practice that divides it into 'market‐justice' and 'social‐justice' models, and shows why it is the market‐justice model that at present dominates. Second, the essay explores how mainstream 'market‐justice' approaches to global health deal with the problem of health inequality rather weakly, and it is suggested that there are both historical and geographical reasons for this. Third, three 'social‐justice' approaches to global health are explored that better take those historical and geographical conditions into account. In conclusion the essay offers some thoughts on the political uses of theories of justice.

The opening ten years of the 21st century arguably were the decade of global health. Resources increased significantly and many millions of lives were saved and improved. The rapid expansion in global health was part of a broader conceptual movement that created core principles for the use of resources in a new era in development. The first expression of new thinking was the historic Monterrey Consensus, which was later refined by the Paris Declaration and the Accra Accord. The foundational principle outlined in those agreements is a move from paternalism to shared responsibility and mutual accountability. Key to shared responsibility are leadership and strategic direction for the use of resources by the country in which they are deployed ("country ownership"). Achieving country ownership requires good governance, a results-based approach, and the engagement of all sectors of society. Adapted from the source document.