BMJ  2007;335:646 (29 September), doi:10.1136/bmj.39349.591296.59

Observations

What's on bmj.com

The dangers of attacking disease programmes for developing countries

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Roger England has launched yet another broadside attack on programmes for priority diseases in poor countries (BMJ 2007;335:565 doi: 10.1136/bmj.39335.520463.94 and 2007;334:344 doi: 10.1136/bmj.39113.402361.94). In his latest Personal View, he claims that "disease specific global programmes [are] not the way to help Africa," instead that they cause "big problems for recipients," and that money for HIV/AIDS is "the worst." He claims that off-budget money leads to distortions; that there are duplications of plans, operations, and monitoring; and that priority disease programmes are neither cost effective nor sustainable.

His evidence that little is being achieved is one statistic: HIV prophylaxis is reaching only 9% (actually it is 11%) of pregnancies of HIV positive women. He blames the warped prioritisation of disease programmes on international lobby groups from rich countries.

England's prescription for change says that (1) governments must stop funding global programmes that do not go through countries' planning . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Articles

The dangers of disease specific programmes for developing countries

Roger England
BMJ 2007 335: 565. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Are we spending too much on HIV?

Roger England
BMJ 2007 334: 344. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]