It must also be recalled that the founders of WHO, was activated for the benefit of its member state. Thus, the emphasis on prevention and direct control is not unexpected. At the same time, by 20th century the rising of germ theory and modern bacteriology were also affecting the institution in two ways (Scott 2015: 34). First, infectious disease outbreaks posed a direct threat to social contact between citizens and the government (Scott 2015: 34). If the government allowed the disease to rage unchecked, the legitimacy of the state would be questionable. Plus, to go against the Resolution would put them on a difficult position as their humanity would be questionable. Second, emphasis on disease also fits the biomedical of health (Scott 2015:
…show more content…
The funding, in turn has led an increase in the number of people receiving treatment through the life prolonging Anti-Retroviral Therapies (ARV). However, only 2 million people actually received treatment in middle and low income countries, although it fall short of the 7.1 million people estimated to be in urgent need of ARVs (Elbe 2009: 76). Meanwhile, in the year 2000, 189 UN Member States signed the Millennium Declaration, which establish eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to be achieved by 2015. However, many of these most important development including MDGs and the creation of Global fund were not primarily based on security considerations. Throughout this time, argued that this is a reflective that the process of de-securitization of HIV/AIDS appears to have set it at the global level. Apparently since 2005, the Security Council have started to show only occasional interest towards …show more content…
Plus, the health MDGs were still leaving important gaps as they too neglect the focus towards non-communicable disease. Due to economic constraint, the interests and activities in R&D for neglected diseases were usually only driven by not-for-profit community, industry and major philanthropists (Moran 2014: 229). Government were usually entrusted R&D only for medicines of high value (Moran 2014: 229). Thus, even though de-securitizing HIV/AIDS opened a medium for the development of other infection diseases, the world still see infection diseases as threatening more than other diseases. And as to what threatens, there is always a prioritization over diseases that affect the people of higher income. HIV-positive people worldwide fell by 20% over a decade, and in 25 countries the indication rate among adults fell by more than 50% (UNAIDS 2012). In comparison to 2002, only about 300,000 people received treatment but later in 2011, 8 million people had access. However, almost half of all HIV-infected people in low and middle income countries still do not have access to this life saving treatment (UNAIDS 2012). Therefore, it is still questionable as to what extend diseases such as HIV/AIDS were actually deemed as an international threat.
The funding, in turn has led an increase in the number of people receiving treatment through the life prolonging Anti-Retroviral Therapies (ARV). However, only 2 million people actually received treatment in middle and low income countries, although it fall short of the 7.1 million people estimated to be in urgent need of ARVs (Elbe 2009: 76). Meanwhile, in the year 2000, 189 UN Member States signed the Millennium Declaration, which establish eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to be achieved by 2015. However, many of these most important development including MDGs and the creation of Global fund were not primarily based on security considerations. Throughout this time, argued that this is a reflective that the process of de-securitization of HIV/AIDS appears to have set it at the global level. Apparently since 2005, the Security Council have started to show only occasional interest towards …show more content…
Plus, the health MDGs were still leaving important gaps as they too neglect the focus towards non-communicable disease. Due to economic constraint, the interests and activities in R&D for neglected diseases were usually only driven by not-for-profit community, industry and major philanthropists (Moran 2014: 229). Government were usually entrusted R&D only for medicines of high value (Moran 2014: 229). Thus, even though de-securitizing HIV/AIDS opened a medium for the development of other infection diseases, the world still see infection diseases as threatening more than other diseases. And as to what threatens, there is always a prioritization over diseases that affect the people of higher income. HIV-positive people worldwide fell by 20% over a decade, and in 25 countries the indication rate among adults fell by more than 50% (UNAIDS 2012). In comparison to 2002, only about 300,000 people received treatment but later in 2011, 8 million people had access. However, almost half of all HIV-infected people in low and middle income countries still do not have access to this life saving treatment (UNAIDS 2012). Therefore, it is still questionable as to what extend diseases such as HIV/AIDS were actually deemed as an international threat.