Talk:World Health Organization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale
WikiProject International relations This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, an attempt to provide information in a consistent format for articles about international organizations, diplomats, international meetings, and relations between states.
If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
United Nations This article is part of the United Nations WikiProject.
UN Portal
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Contents

[edit] This is essentially the same definition of health used by most branches of alternative medicine.

Not really. This is not the case for homeopathy, several forms of electrotherapy along with others others. Quite a few don't really have a concept of health as such. Perhaps what you are referring to is "holistic medicine". Whether WHO's definition of health agrees with that of some areas of alt med is not very important for an article about the WHO. It is probably of interest in some alt med articles though.

I believe that the definitions of palliative care and tradtional mnedicine are completely out of place here OR that they need to be accompanied by ALL WHO definitions of ALL types of medicine/therapies. However, User:Mr-Natural-Health is currently in arbitration over such edits, so I suggest keeping them until that process is completed rather than indulge in an edit war. The article currently stands as a testament to the unbalancing influence of the aformentioned user. Actually, I'll add a boiler. --bodnotbod 09:45, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)


Remove them. I put them in because MNH seemed to think defintions were nesscary and I was trying to be fair.Geni 12:52, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] structure

current revision of the page states that UN member states as of 2004 are 192, but that is wrong. They are 191. 192 are the WHO members, but not all of them are UN member states, and also not all UN member states are members of the WHO. Look at the link that I added at the bottom. Becouse of that number-mismatch-error I suspise that maybe the whole text is not correct: "UN Member States (..error..) appoint delegations to the World Health Assembly, WHO's supreme decision-making body". Someone to check all this? I will try to correct the members-error, but for the structural architecture of WHO I don't know anything... Why is Liechtenstein not participating? Are all WHO members sending delegations - including assosiated Cook Isands and Niue (as I have written) or only the regular state members? If all are sending delegations - what is the difference between regular and assosiated member? Why only New Zealand's self-governing territories are "independent" WHO members, but not similar territories of other states?

Alinor 12:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I checked the WHO constitution to clarify the WHO/UN membership issue. Hope the current text is clear. Rd232 20:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] budget of the WHO/partnership section

I don't think that half the budget of the WHO comes from Lucifer Trust. From what I understand the majority of the funding for WHO comes from its members countries - I don't think WHO receives much money at all directly from foundation and industry (or from individuals - though they do offer the possibly to donate with their website).

Also the public-private partnerships listed on this page work "with" the WHO but in most cases receive no financial support from WHO. Many are independent foundations - with no official links to the WHO. I think that the paragraph on partnerships is very misleading. It makes it look like the partnerships listed are part of the WHO.

I notice that this same information is repeated on the Public-Private Parterships page. I don't know enough yet about Wikipedia to suggest how to fix this - but a good source of some additional information on public-private partnerships related to health can be found at

http://www.mmv.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=27

I think this website above is not critical enough of private-public partnerships! Please compare with views held by Health Action International:

http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/PPI/seminar200011.html

[edit] male genital mutilation

I heard that this organization fights more against female genital mutilation than themale genital mutilation. Aren't men and women under the same laws? Shouldn't they be equal? Why the womwn should be more equal than the men. I think and I'm 1000% sure that this organization should fight against any type of mutilation. Circumcision is considered a mutilation. If some will say is for religious reasons, I say female circucision, in most of the cases, is done also for religious reasons. Why some religious reasons are above other? The believes of the people should be respected by everybody. What make some people that their religion can say what other's cannot? I ask every single man that read this is and was not, thanks God, circumcised, to tell me and other how they feel if somebody comes tomorrow at their doors and tells them they have to cut some of their dick skin (on live)? How about their children, how would they feel? If in some religious this what they have to do, let them do it, because most of you are doing the same thing with your children. You should let the kids decide what they want. Alexsensei 23:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)alexsensei

[edit] male genital mutilation

I believe that any kind of mutilation, not only circumcision, is just as bad as the rape. And I think it should be punished the same way.

last one was mine too. sorry for not signing.Alexsensei 01:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)alexsensei

The difference, Alex, is that male circumcision does not result in any sexual difficulties, or anything like that. FGMs, on the other hand, mean almost total loss of sensation for the woman, and possible health problems. That is why they are treated differently. Male circumcision is actually quite healthy, even though it is not necessary.Themalau 13:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but recent studies have shown that male circumcision result in a great loss of sensation for the man, because the lack of foreskin will dry that part of the penis.

[edit] List of WHO Representatives

I think a topic should be added, who agrees?--Eshcorp 09:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion in Category:Pro-choice organizations

Category:Pro-life organizations includes the following description:

The following is a list of organizations that call themselves pro-life, or support this cause.

I added a similar description to Category:Pro-choice organizations to be consistent:

The following is a list of organizations that call themselves pro-choice, or support this cause.

The WHO fits this description. WHO does not have to have pro-choice or anything similar in its name in order to promote or support abortion rights, which it does. Severa keeps removing it from the WikiProject Abortion. I think it belongs there. Thoughts, anyone? MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 15:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see my rationale at the WikiProject Abortion talk page. Input in helping to better define the criteria used for project categorization and/or inclusion would be appreciated. -Severa (!!!) 16:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The WHO, being a multi-lateral organization, must uphold health and healthcare standards that suit the needs of the majority of the people within its member states. It happens to be that the cause of pro-lifers is pretty well represented in the world; so much so, that often, in many countries, there are quite heart-rending and devastating abortion practices, that put the mother at risk. WHO people are doctors, they have to save lives, and more importantly here, prevent the majority of people from dying. If that means informing people on the availability of safe abortions, that just seems logical, and not particularly pro-choice.Themalau 13:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liechtenstein

Why isn't Liechtenstein a member? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Has Montenegro been admited? - Privacy 20:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Montenegro yes; Liechtenstein - it is not on the official members list, so it appears to be a non-member, but I don't know why so... Alinor 06:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It's most likely represented by switzerland 4.142.126.242 18:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)eric

[edit] Funding controversy

Removed this inaccurate and misleading section:

Funding Controversy
Daphne Fresle, a former top official in the WHO office that monitors worldwide pharmaceutical use, resigned in protest in 2002, complaining of the agency's relationships with drug makers. She said WHO higher-ups routinely censored internal disagreements among staff members over drug-company influence on the agency.

This section was presumably based on an inaccurate and misleading June 26, 2005 Seattle Times article, New blood-pressure guidelines pay off — for drug companies that said:

In the 1980s, the agency turned its attention to noncommunicable diseases. But its ability to do meaningful work was limited by a budget that had been frozen at $450 million.
That's where drug companies stepped in.
The WHO solicits tens of millions of dollars yearly from companies whose fortunes it directly affects. In fact, the international agency now takes in more private money — more than $500 million a year — than it gets in dues from its 192 member nations.
Daphne Fresle, a former top official in the WHO office that monitors worldwide pharmaceutical use, resigned in protest in 2002, complaining of the agency's relationships with drug makers. She said WHO higher-ups routinely censored internal disagreements among staff members over drug-company influence on the agency.

The article inaccurately and misleadingly says the WHO gets most of its funding from private sources, and by implication from drug companies. It does not. Since assessed contributions (dues) have long been frozen, voluntary contributions now provide over half of the WHO's funding, primarily from national and local governments, foundations and NGOs, and other UN organizations, with very little coming from private sources (drug companies and others).[1][2]

The Dec 23, 2001, six-page resignation letter by Daphne Fresle, a member of the WHO essential drugs and medicines policy group, was described in more detail in a May 4, 2002 article by Lancet editor Richard Horton.PMID 12047986 It was not protesting pharmaceutical companies contributing too much to funding of the WHO. 69.208.181.183 00:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Repairs'

The beginning sector of this page is in need of 'repairs'. The image doesn't show, the disambiguation link doesn't work and a lot of other sectors don't show. I'm no expert so a little bit of volunteering would help. Dorkules 16:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Health Report

The "criticism" in this section from an opinion piece violates WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Firstly, it is an opinion piece from someone who is not an expert on the WHO, the health report or even health policy. Secondly, the amount of space given to it matches the actual description of the report. I am removing this section. If a section wants to be included about criticism, it should have genuine secondary sources that describe the world health report being criticised for x and y. Not chunks of quotation from opinion pieces. Recurring dreams 14:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smoking Controvery

I removed an expert tag that was inserted along with a claim that the WHO's policy on not hiring smokers is discriminatory as it was obvious POV. I did not remove the content. I am uncertain what expert help was being looked for and I do not know that this should continue to be listed under controversies, but left it to others more intimately familiar with the WHO. Cheers and happy editing, Into The Fray T/C 05:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Directors General order

The first director general is listed at the top, but the incumbent is listed at the bottom.Htmlqawsedrftg (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)