The ideological capture of WHO's social participation mechanisms in the negotiation of the international pandemic agreement

Dados Bibliográficos

ID3070495
AutoresVitória De Paula Ramos (0000-0003-1058-9640, Universidade de São Paulo, Brasil; Grupo de Trabalho Acordo sobre Pandemias e Reforma do Regulamento Sanitário Internacional), Leandro Luiz Viegas (0000-0002-3867-9798, Grupo de Trabalho Acordo sobre Pandemias e Reforma do Regulamento Sanitário Internacional), Deisy Ventura (0000-0001-8237-2470, Universidade de São Paulo, Brasil; Grupo de Trabalho Acordo sobre Pandemias e Reforma do Regulamento Sanitário Internacional)
Ano2023
Volume32
Fascículo3
Data de publicação2023-01-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoSaúde e Sociedade (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0104-1290 • E-ISSN: 1984-0470
EditoraFapUNIFESP (SciELO) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1590/s0104-12902023230439en
OpenAlexW4389798786
IdiomaEN
Referências citadas17

This article addresses social participation in the negotiations of the international agreement on pandemics, conducted within the World Health Organization (WHO) by an Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB). It presents the results of research conducted with a literature review, document research that covered over 100 documents of the INB, and empirical research that carried out a qualitative analysis of the contents of 383 videos sent by the general public during the second phase of public hearings of the INB. The research confirms the hypothesis that there has been an ideological capture of the public hearings, understood as the concerted action of individuals and organizations that, by taking advantage of participation modalities open to the general public, with a massive action in favor of unscientific or unverifiable arguments, have sought to distort the purpose of social participation, turning the public consultation on what should be included in the agreement on pandemics into a space for the dissemination of their political agenda. It also presents evidence of concerted action by far-right groups against the agreement. The conclusions point to the need for changes in this participation mechanism, in favor of a regulation of global health that considers the opinion and interests of its main recipients

Action (physics) · Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) · Disease · Ideology · Infectious disease (medical specialty) · Modalities · Negotiation · Pandemic · Political science · Politics · Public health · Public opinion · Public relations · Social science · Sociology · Global Security and Public Health · Law · Medicine · Nursing · Public Administration · Risk Perception and Management