Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Commentary
Authors' response — WHO must prioritise its roles and then be positioned and supported to execute effectively
  1. Joel Negin1,
  2. Ranu S Dhillon2
  1. 1Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2Division of Global Health Equity, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Joel Negin; joel.negin{at}sydney.edu.au

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We are pleased to see that our article has incited debate and discussion. While the responses reflect a wide range of perspectives, what is clear is that there is a need for fundamental reform in how WHO is organised and functions. And, while we offer thoughts on how this could be carried out, we are less inclined to ‘sell a solution’ than we are to ‘solve a problem.’ Any approach to WHO reform will undoubtedly entail imperfect trade-offs which can best be understood and navigated for the overall greatest good through critical discussion from a wide range of perspectives as offered by the respondents.

Each response offers important insights and criticisms that serve to further and deepen …

View Full Text

Linked Articles