Should there be a World Health Assembly resolution for malaria eradication? Opinion against

A resolution for eradicating malaria, if passed by the World Health Assembly (WHA), will have a distracting effect on all countries with malaria. The continued prevalence of malaria is indicative of weak public health infrastructure. True, smallpox was eradicated by international efforts following W...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inMalaria journal Vol. 18; no. 1; p. 353
Main Author John, T Jacob
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England BioMed Central Ltd 21.10.2019
BioMed Central
BMC
Subjects
Analysis
Control
Debate
Disease eradication
Disease Eradication - organization & administration
Global Health
Humans
Infrastructure (Economics)
International Cooperation
Malaria
Malaria - prevention & control
Poliomyelitis
Public health
Retirement benefits
Smallpox
Social aspects
Vaccines
World health
World Health Organization - organization & administration
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:A resolution for eradicating malaria, if passed by the World Health Assembly (WHA), will have a distracting effect on all countries with malaria. The continued prevalence of malaria is indicative of weak public health infrastructure. True, smallpox was eradicated by international efforts following WHA resolution: the success factor was primary prevention using a safe and effective vaccine. A resolution to eradicate polio was passed in 1988, with a target year of 2000, but even in 2019 success is not within reach. Public health experts are hesitant to move forward with measles eradication before polio is eradicated. Country by country elimination of malaria is a better way, ensuring the strengthening of public health infrastructure, with many other health benefits.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1475-2875
1475-2875
DOI:10.1186/s12936-019-2928-2