Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • First Speakman and colleagues do not mention

    2019-04-22

    First, Speakman and colleagues do not mention the developments in the 2000s, when notable EU attention was given to global health. In 2010, there was a high-level conference and the launch of a European Commission Communication, which stated that the EU\'s commitment to global health should mainly focus on democratic and inclusive global health governance, ensure universal health coverage, create policy coherence, and invest in research that benefits all. The ensuing Council Conclusions urged for a more central EU role in global health. However, the initiative soon lost momentum. In addition to other urgent crises (for example, European sovereign debt and migration), which took priority for obvious reasons, the large fragmentation of the European global health herpes simplex virus was probably also an explanation for the decreased interest. Moreover, despite attempts to coordinate EU action on global health, influential member states wanted to maintain control of this domain. Second, Speakman and colleagues mainly write from a health security perspective. Although health security is certainly an important aspect of global health, it tends to focus on issues that pose most risks to the countries providing assistance and does not necessarily resonate with the priorities of the countries in need. An updated EU global health strategy should also advocate for shared responsibility for global public goods, in line with EU documents from a few years ago, which claimed that “the EU should apply the common values and principles of solidarity towards equitable and universal coverage of quality health services in all external and internal policies and actions”. In the current difficult international environment, a so-called enlightened interest perspective might be the most viable approach to combine both perspectives. Meanwhile, looser forms of collaboration between European countries in specific health-related areas could be developed—coalitions of the willing, if you will. The by the Netherlands and Belgium provides an excellent example of this approach.
    Lancet Glob Health ; e593–603—In this Article, the open access licence should have been listed as CC BY. This correction has been made to the online version as of May 26, 2017.
    Lancet Glob Health —In this Article, the wrong version of the appendix was included. The appendix has been corrected as of July 14, 2017.