Talk:Global health

Request for changes

I propose major changes in this article. It no longer reads like a concise entry in an encyclopedia whose main goal is to provide basic information about a topic.

The section on bioethics should be incorporated into the bioethics entry. As of my reading on Dec. 4, 2006, the bioethics section overwhelms the article on global health.

The section on brain drain, while pertinent, is overlong and veers into advocacy. CGorman1271 16:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hidden material

In a cleanup edit, I uncovered a very large part of this article that has been hidden. It starts with "Global Health and HIV/AIDS" and goes to the end. It needs a thorough cleanup. JonHarder 04:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Have started cutting down article length

Article needs to be cut in half to get it under the 32 KB Wiki guideline for readable articles. CGorman1271 20:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Global Health as a political issue and entity

The article must be edited considerably to meet Wiki standards (length, format, references etc.) but the most serious concern is that the current perspectives here are very much from a traditional medical allied health science perspective. Global health (IOM definition) transcends national boundaries and addresses global social, cultural and physical determinants of population health (NOT disease); it is by implication a political challenge that cannot be taken on by nation-states alone. Thus, this is an issue of concern for global good governance and global civil society.

Evelyne de Leeuw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.132.1.1 (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring the Article

I think the way this discussion is going, this article probably needs to be totally (or nearly so) scrapped and given new structure. Maybe a logical way to go would be to start with a clearer "History" section, maybe beginning with the evolution of tropical medicine as a specialty during the 19th century, and bringing it up to about 2000. Then maybe focus on several broader topics, maybe: -New/Re-emerging infections (so HIV/AIDS, TB, SARS, H5N1, etc.) -Malaria -Non-Communicable Chronic Disease -Nutrition -Sanitation

I don't think any of these sections need to be long, especially as there are already extensive articles on each of these specific topics.

Any thoughts? Daneel (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of cleanup

I have now removed the cleanup banner.

I have made large number of changes, mainly in the disease section where I have added a number of references. I also added a section on respiratory diseases etc. I did some restructuring and relatively small changes in other parts as well. I feel the disease and nutrition section is now more up to date with current understanding of these issues . However, there is still room for improvement . For example, I feel the introductory part could be improved. The ideal structure and content of this entry is debatable depending on perspective. Any thoughts? Are any important issues missing? --Useknowledge (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Much improvement

Many thanks to Useknowledge, whoever you are. The entry is much more readable and concise--a great improvement.

Next steps: the section on "health conditions" is a little scatter-shot--and to Evelyne de Leeuw's point, it focuses on diseases and not health. Would like to see some thought given to organization there--perhaps along the lines Daneel suggests. This will probably take some discussion first before editing.

As for disciplinary approaches to global health--is there room to take note of the ongoing debate over whether health is a human right?

CGorman1271 (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft

Under the history section, I've deleted a reference about Bill Gates giving billions on international health initiatives. After reviewing the references given on his bio page, I could not find a specific example relating to billions given for global health. However, I know that the "Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation" has been giving serious amounts in support to global issues. Until we can present this better, I doubt stating Gates as this century's example is worth mentioning, giving readers the impression that Microsoft is a top player in global health support. --Enigma (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Family Health International

Why is Family Health International a See Also link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einlowhood (talk • contribs) 22:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)