Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Response from World Health Organization
- Christine McNab (21 February 2007)
-
Unfair and hasty conclusions
- Rangaswamy Thara (22 February 2007)
-
How wrong can the BMJ be?
- Leon Eisenberg (22 February 2007)
-
BMJ goes for the glitz
- Mitchell G Weiss (22 February 2007)
|
|
|||
|
Christine McNab, Acting Director of Communications World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland
Send response to journal:
|
Regarding: "Who's funding WHO?" published in the BMJ 15 February 2007 The World Health Organization categorically rejects the allegations made in a recent story in the British Medical Journal which imply that WHO solicits money from the pharmaceutical sector through independent organizations by circumventing its own rules. As the BMJ correctly reports, WHO has clear guidelines against seeking or accepting funds from commercial enterprises or through third parties where there would be a conflict of interest. When WHO does accept donations or funds from pharmaceutical companies (for example, donations of vaccines or medicines), those donations are clearly accounted for and transparently reported. In this specific case, Dr Benedetto Saraceno was very clear. He had never asked that funds be solicited from the pharmaceutical sector, and he declined the funds that were offered. WHO is concerned about the BMJ's depiction of Dr Saraceno. He is a professional of deep personal integrity. In the ten years he has been with WHO, Dr Saraceno has tirelessly worked to highlight the public health consequences and grave inequalities faced by the millions of people who are affected by mental, neurological or behavioural disorders. Christine McNab
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Rangaswamy Thara, Director, Schizophrenia Research Foundation Chennai, India
Send response to journal:
|
I have known Dr.Saraceno for over 15 years, even before he joined the WHO. His great concern for the mentally disabled in many developing countries and his friendly, non-patronizing attitude have won him several friends in this part of the world. He has motivated and inspired the initiation of several psychosocial rehabilitation programmes for the chronic mentally ill. His dealings have always been straight and forthright and many of us here are pained that the conclusions drawn by the author are rather hasty and unjust. Dr.R.Thara
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Leon Eisenberg, Professor of Social Medicine Emeritus Harvard Medical School Boston 02115
Send response to journal:
|
During Benedetto Saraceno's term of office, the budget of the WHO Division of Mental Health has REDUCED its dependency on funds from Pharma from somewhat more than half of the total to less than 1%! To accuse him of cozying up to drug companies is to get it exactly backwards! I'm appalled at besmirching the reputation of a splendid international civil servant. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mitchell G Weiss, Professor and Head of Department of Public Health & Epidemiology Swiss Tropical Institute, CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland
Send response to journal:
|
Ethical questions about inappropriate pharmaceutical funding of doctors and health research are among the most important issues now confronting public health and clinical medicine. They have a huge impact on health systems and society. Consequently, it is unfortunate to read this story sensationalizing an ethical non-event, because it diverts attention from real events that really matter. Here we find a story in which the protagonist, Dr. Benedetto Saraceno, neither requested nor received the funds in question. Framed with colour photos and callout text boxes to call attention to itself, the tale presents a cartoon caricature celebrating the lofty ideals of a pharmaceutical funder standing up to the money laundry at WHO. There may be a story in the events this article reports and lessons to be learned by reflecting on it, but not the one we read here. Polishing GSK's image based on this account discredits the BMJ and serious efforts to rethink and fix problems resulting from the influence of pharmaceutical money that is too often pernicious. Are we really supposed to congratulate GSK, as the author implies, for ensuring tansparency and preserving their lofty moral stature because they withdrew funds that weren't requested by a fabricated culprit? It is especially sad, because the values and reputation of Dr. Saraceno are so completely at odds with the picture presented in this article. Competing interests: None declared |
|||