Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Globalisation of Health Information boon or bane?
- Scaria Vinod (14 July 2002)
-
Information, Internet and the digital divide.
- Scaria Vinod (14 July 2002)
-
The real dark side of globalization
- Geraint R Davies, Mickey Chopra, Shunmay Yeung (1 September 2002)
|
|
|||
|
Scaria Vinod, director center for cybermedicine and medical informatics
Send response to journal:
|
The pace of globalisation is perhaps in its accelerated phase now. Internet has emerged as the single largest media which accelerates the pace of globalisation. Globalisation in terms of health information is to be discussed seriously.Apart from the huge advantage that information on practically all ailments are available on the internet, there are rising concerns on the future of indigenious and alternative systems of medicine, which derive mainly from the technologically poor developing countries. Though the fact that there are instances of these knowledge being available on the internet, these remain isolated instances.These systems of medicine often evolved in centuries and offer satisfactory, culturally acceptible and cost effective cure to common ailments. The global information invasion is gradually wiping away the existence of these systems of medicine.These systems are often refined based on research and have already proved useful in many ailments . The immediate need is to preserve these knowhow for our future generations too. Vinod Scaria |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Scaria Vinod, director center for cybermedicine and medical informatics
Send response to journal:
|
The internet has evolved as both a cost effective and reliable source of information dissemination. The people of the developing world primarily those belonging to Africa are unable to reap the benefits of this technology. There exists a huge disparity in the availability of resources. While it is estimated that about 46.1%[1] of Germans between the age of 14 and 69 use the internet regularly, less than 0.05% of people in many countries of sub saharan Africa regularly use Internet.Moreover, internet acting as the spearhead of globalisation is slowly wiping away indigenious systems of medicine and thereby reversing the health development to some extend.Instances of developing countries like India leap frogging into the Information age still remains as isolated instances. The researchers of the developing world often feel frustrated when it comes to publishing their findings .I feel they should exploit the new avenues opened up by the internet to tide over this . We at the Center for Cybermedicine and Internet research is in the process of creating a network of researchers in developing countries towards achieving this goal. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Geraint R Davies, SpR Infectious Diseases Nottingham City Hospital, Mickey Chopra, Shunmay Yeung
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sir Frenk and Gomez-Dantes1 are to be congratulated in outlining the challenges ‘globalisation’ poses to public health but in this and three accompanying articles we find only passing mention of the international economic context it entails. We would argue that this is both a dominant feature of the phenomenon and a major determinant of health. The correlation between Structural Adjustment Programmes and deterioration in health services and indicators is by now well-documented even by the World Bank2 and the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers that have replaced them continue to prioritise the interests of foreign investors over local people. So it is ironic that just when the development crisis precipitated by AIDS has forced global public goods onto the international agenda, the provisions of the General Agreement on Trade in Services and those envisaged by the Multilateral Agreement on Investment are facilitating transnational market penetration and demonstrably threatening provision of and access to local public goods worldwide, among them safe water, food security and health. Developing countries lose at least $1.3 billion every day because of unfavourable trade rules3, particularly relating to agriculture and textiles, and $0.5 bn per day in debt servicing4. This continued net flow of resources from South to North represents a massive opportunity cost for health that the Fund alone will struggle to redress. If donors met the OECD target of 0.7% of GDP for official development assistance proposed more than thirty years ago such funding would reach $200 bn per year by 2005. The $2.05 bn over three years initially committed to the Global Fund appears in a different light when presented in the company of such statistics5. In the current climate of optimism we cannot afford to be cynical and we agree that health is one global public good that should command universal assent. We must seize the chance to empirically demonstrate the effectiveness of the strategy proposed by the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health. However we must also recognise and challenge the constraints imposed by the current international economic order in the arena where it’s inequitable effects are most obvious if our efforts are to have the scale and impact that the poor and sick in developing countries deserve. In addition to exchange, evidence and empathy we desperately need engagement. To many worthy words we would add only those of Mary Wollstonecraft: “It is justice not charity that is wanting in the world”. Geraint Davies Mickey Chopra ShunMay Yeung Corresponding author: gerrydavies@doctors.org.uk 1. Frenk J, Gomez-Dantes O.Globalisation and the challenges to health systems BMJ 2002; 325:95-97 2. Structural Adjustment Participatory Review International Network. The policy roots of economic crisis and poverty :a multi-country participatory assessment SAPRIN April 2002 3. UNCTAD The Least Developed countries report. Geneva: UNCTAD 1999 4. World Bank. Global Finance Report. World Bank 2001 5. Lewis S. Address to the opening ceremony of the G6B People’s summit June 2002. Available at http://www.g6bpeoplessummit.org |
|||