tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9112840065540727972.post18629484724173192..comments2023-11-02T08:30:40.051-04:00Comments on A Blog on Bioethics: Lancet/Oslo Commission on Global Governance for Health: Preliminary ResponseStephen Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05522413778422149522noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9112840065540727972.post-75134291615667502622016-12-14T04:55:11.303-05:002016-12-14T04:55:11.303-05:00Do you mind if I quote a couple of your posts as l...Do you mind if I quote a couple of your posts as long as I provide credit and sources back to your blog? My blog is in the exact same niche as yours and my users would really benefit from some of the information you provide here. Please let me know if this ok with you. Thank you!<br /><a href="http://www.iusmlecourse.com/" rel="nofollow">Usmle cs</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06372609242583290553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9112840065540727972.post-66965705359535598672014-03-04T12:34:18.963-05:002014-03-04T12:34:18.963-05:00As a member of the Commission I am pleased that St...As a member of the Commission I am pleased that Stephen Latham seems to agree with its central argument, and that the report “makes a number of important observations and recommendations which, I hope, might eventually inform the debate in the real world”. But I would like to react to his two criticisms. One is that the report's recommendations are “an unrealistic wish-list for ideal global governance, entirely divorced from consideration of the political and legal constraints under which real countries and international associations operate”. We are very well aware of precisely these constraints, and spend much of the report describing them. The question is: what is to be done? Should one have utopian visions or be satisfied with just another small step in the right direction? Ironically, the report has been criticised by Charles Clift at Chatham House for the opposite reason from Latham’s– for not being radical enough. (See the response to Charles Clift by my co-Commissioner Gorik Ooms at http://e.itg.be/ihp/archives/global-governance-times-distrust/<br />Latham’s other criticism is that the authors of the report did not know of the existence of Amartya Sen, Thomas Pogge and others. Quite the contrary: some of us are, like Latham, ‘hopeless academics’ who are well aware of them and discussed their work at our meetings. We should perhaps have made explicit reference to their writings in the report, but they certainly influenced our ideas. (And contrary to Latham’s assumption, the majority of the Commission’s members were not medics, nor were we fearful of alienating a ‘primarily medical audience’.)<br /><br />Desmond McNeill, SUM, University of OsloDesmond McNeillhttp://www.med.uio.no/helsam/english/research/global-governance-health/index.htmlnoreply@blogger.com