« NYT on Lilly's Zyprexa - unsettling at best | Main | NYT, Sonny Kleinfield on diabetes and laws »

Comments

I would agree (I have a friend whose mother works for the U.N.) and you are right that the WHO has only been a friend when it came to meaningless resolutions until recently. But its worth noting that Dr. Chan has only been Director General since August 2006, so I think the latest reflects the speed at which the WHO has changed!

Thanks for your thoughts Scott- actually, as I understand it, the WHO’s response was not the warmest for some time. After the G77 embraced the resolution and there was clear evidence it would pass, the WHO did make a full statement in support. This was roughly five days before it passed, so although I wholly support the work WHO does for diabetes, it doesn't actually sound, this time, like they were one of the key influencers along the path toward UN resolution on diabetes passage. That's why we didn't mention WHO in the original piece.

While the WHO has been a partner of the IDF for some time, and while they have resolutions related to diabetes (one of which is cited in the UN resolution), and while have indicated support for diabetes, many would say that their budget cuts reflect a different story. Infectious disease has clearly been the priority. As they have limited funds, that's understandable, just as it should be understandable to them that they aren't the first cited for chronic care commitment. I share others' hope that Dr Chan will be able to pay more note to chronic disease and to give it increasing attention in the coming months and years.

While the IDF played a vital role, I also think we can give some credit to World Health Organization (WHO) director-general Dr. Margaret Chan. Dr. Chan studied medicine in Canada, obtaining her medical degree from the University of Western Ontario before returning to Hong Kong as the Director of Health there.

Dr. Chan said that if she became director-general, she would focus on chronic diseases (which includes diabetes) saying that the world would do well to remember that chronic diseases were responsible for 60% of the world's mortality.

"Infectious diseases have the drama effect, the media effect ... the concentration is always on communicable diseases and this is something I would like to change a bit," Chan said.

The comments to this entry are closed.