Law School, Suffolk University, Boston, MA, USA.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022 Mar 1;11(3):386-390. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2020.162.
This commentary situates the comments submitted in response to the World Health Organization (WHO) draft guidance on conflicts of interest in national nutrition programs in light of: (1) WHO policies to protect WHO integrity; (2) the Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors (FENSA); (3) WHO's attempt to seek funds due to cuts in member contributions; and (4) attempts-often by corporate entities-to redefine conflicts of interest to avoid oversight of conflicts of interest and increase corporate influence. The WHO guidance defines conflicts of interest in ways that deviate from standard legal usage which confuses its analysis and facilitates the creation of conflicted public-private partnerships. The guidance suggests that nations can allow engagement with non-state actors when the benefits are greater than risks without separate check due to conflicts of interest. Instead, the WHO should have recommended that nations seek alternative ways to achieve their goals when non-state actors have significant institutional conflicts of interest.
本评论参照以下方面,对世界卫生组织(WHO)关于国家营养计划利益冲突的指导意见中的评论进行了定位:(1)WHO 保护组织完整性的政策;(2)与非国家行为体的合作框架(FENSA);(3)WHO 因成员国捐款减少而寻求资金的尝试;以及(4)企业实体经常试图重新定义利益冲突,以避免利益冲突的监督并增加企业影响力。WHO 的指导意见以偏离标准法律用法的方式定义利益冲突,这混淆了其分析并为创建有冲突的公私合作伙伴关系提供了便利。该指导意见表明,当利益大于风险时,国家可以允许与非国家行为体进行接触,而无需因利益冲突而进行单独检查。相反,当非国家行为体存在重大制度利益冲突时,世界卫生组织应该建议各国寻求其他方法来实现其目标。