Science or marketing at WHO? A response to Williams

On the relationship between individual and population health

The relationship between individual and population health is partially built on the broad dichotomization of medicine into clinical medicine and public health. Potential drawbacks of current views include seeing both individual and population health as absolute and independent concepts. I will argue that the relationship between individual and population health is largely relative and dynamic. Their interrelated dynamism derives from a causally defined life course perspective on health determination starting from an individual's conception through growth, development and participation in the collective till death, all seen within the context of an adaptive society. Indeed, it will become clear that neither individual nor population health is identifiable or even definable without informative contextualization within the other. For instance, a person's health cannot be seen in isolation but must be placed in the rich contextual web such as the socioeconomic circumstances and other health determinants of where they were conceived, born, bred, and how they shaped and were shaped by their environment and communities, especially given the prevailing population health exposures over their lifetime. We cannot discuss the "what" and "how much" of individual and population health until we know the cumulative trajectories of both, using appropriate causal language.

The World Health Report 2000: World Health Organization health policy steering off course-changed values, poor evidence, and lack of accountability

The World Health Report 2000 on health systems has raised concerns about its political biases, its methods and indicators, and its lack of reliable data. Tracing the origins of the Report, this article argues that it counteracts many of the concerns that gave rise to preparation of the Report in the first place. The mutually agreed-upon value-base, expressed in the Health for All strategy, has been largely abandoned. The Report includes contradictory messages, and many of its recommendations are not evidence-based. Furthermore, the ranking of countries according to their health systems' performance is not useful for health-policy-making, even if the methods and data could be improved. Because the member states and governing bodies of the WHO were not consulted during the production of the Report, the WHO secretariat has not received a mandate to change the value-base of the WHO's health policy or the aims of the Report. The WHO should return to its mandate as a normative intergovernmental U.N. agency on health.