Public Health Ethics Advance Access originally published online on September 19, 2008
Public Health Ethics 2009 2(1):100-104; doi:10.1093/phe/phn033
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Responsibilities for Global Health: The Efficiency of the Health Impact Fund?
University of Helsinki
* Corresponding author: Department of Systematic Theology, PO Box 33, FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland. Tel.: +358 40 560 5244; Fax: +358 9 191 23033; Email: ville.paivansalo{at}helsinki.fi
 |
Abstract |
|---|
Thomas Pogge has included responsibilities for global health at the core of his liberal agenda and has urged corresponding, efficient reforms in practice. The current article focuses on his proposal for establishing a global fund for the development and delivery of essential medicines for the poor. It is argued that while Pogge interestingly attempts to harness both moral and non-moral human resources to serve global health, the efficiency of his proposed fund is not evident. First, its internal logic implies that part of valuable development aid would end up as profit for drug corporations. Hence, the corporations should be able to utilise the other part of the public funding remarkably efficiently. Second, several existing programmes for global health (such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis) have achieved significant results. This provides them with a firm basis for applying for additional funding. In accordance with the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, the plea for additional funding for global health seems overwhelmingly justified; in order to coordinate its use efficiently, a significant degree of public management is needed.