logo
Global pandemic accord adopted by WHO amid U.S. absence

Global pandemic accord adopted by WHO amid U.S. absence

CBC20-05-2025

Members of the World Health Organization adopted an agreement on Tuesday intended to improve preparedness for future pandemics following the disjointed global response to COVID-19, but the absence of the U.S. cast doubt on the treaty's effectiveness.
After three years of negotiations, the legally binding pact was adopted by the World Health Assembly in Geneva. WHO member countries welcomed its passing with applause.
The pact was touted as a victory for members of the global health agency at a time when multilateral organizations like the WHO have been battered by sharp cuts in U.S. foreign funding.
"The agreement is a victory for public health, science and multilateral action. It will ensure we, collectively, can better protect the world from future pandemic threats," said WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.
The pact aims to ensure that drugs, therapeutics and vaccines are globally accessible when the next pandemic hits. It requires participating manufacturers to allocate a target of 20 per cent of their vaccines, medicines and tests to the WHO during a pandemic to ensure poorer countries have access.
However, U.S. negotiators left discussions about the accord after President Donald Trump began a 12-month process of withdrawing the U.S. — by far the WHO's largest financial backer — from the agency when he took office in January.
Given this, the U.S., which poured billions of dollars into vaccine development during the COVID pandemic, would not be bound by the pact. And WHO member states would not face penalties if they failed to implement it.
U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. slammed the World Health Organization in a video address to the assembly, saying it had failed to learn from the lessons of the pandemic with the new agreement.
"It has doubled down with the pandemic agreement, which will lock in all of the dysfunction of the WHO pandemic response.... We're not going to participate in that," he said.
Accord draws mixed reviews
The deal was reached after Slovakia called for a vote on Monday, as its COVID-19 vaccine-skeptic prime minister demanded that his country challenge the adoption of the agreement.
One hundred and twenty-four countries voted in favour, no countries voted against, while 11 countries, including Poland, Israel, Italy, Russia, Slovakia and Iran, abstained.
Some health experts welcomed the treaty as a step toward greater fairness in global health after poorer nations were left short of vaccines and diagnostics during the COVID-19 pandemic.
"It contains critical provisions, especially in research and development, that — if implemented — could shift the global pandemic response toward greater equity," Michelle Childs, policy advocacy director at Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative, told Reuters.
Others said the agreement did not meet initial ambitions and that, without strong implementation frameworks, it risked falling short in a future pandemic.
"It is an empty shell.… It's difficult to say that it's a treaty with firm obligation where there is a strong commitment.... It's a good starting point. But it will have to be developed," said Gian Luca Burci, an academic adviser at the Global Health Centre at the Geneva Graduate Institute, an independent research and education organization.
Helen Clark, co-chair of The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, described the accord as a foundation to build from.
"Many gaps remain in finance, equitable access to medical countermeasures and in understanding evolving risks," she added.
The pact will not go into effect until an annex on sharing of pathogenic information is finalized. Negotiations on this would start in July with the aim of delivering the annex to the World Health Assembly for adoption, WHO said. A Western diplomatic source suggested it may take up to two years to be finalized.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Septic System Owners Are Ditching the Old Way of Cleaning Toilets
Septic System Owners Are Ditching the Old Way of Cleaning Toilets

Globe and Mail

timean hour ago

  • Globe and Mail

Septic System Owners Are Ditching the Old Way of Cleaning Toilets

You're already cleaning your toilet — why not clean your septic system too, with the same flush? The first and only 2-in-1 cleaner that cleans your toilet and treats your septic system at the same time. Instead of using harsh chemicals that can harm septic health, this foaming formula uses Dr. Pooper's proven Accelerator by Dr. Pooper® bio-technology to safely break down septic solids. Hockley, TX - Jun 3, 2025 - In a market filled with 'single-purpose' bathroom cleaners, the new Accelerator by Dr. Pooper® Toilet Bowl & Septic Cleaner is simplifying routines — and septic system maintenance — with a smarter, dual-function approach. What makes this product so different? It's the first and only 2-in-1 cleaner that cleans your toilet and treats your septic system at the same time. Instead of using harsh chemicals that can harm septic health, this foaming formula uses Dr. Pooper's proven Accelerator by Dr. Pooper® bio-technology to safely break down solids in your pipes, tank, and drain field. 'It's the easiest and most effective septic maintenance you'll ever do,' said Chris Denny, CEO and co-founder of Dr. Pooper. 'You're already cleaning your toilet — why not clean your septic system too, with the same flush?' The 2-in-1 Toilet Bowl & Septic Cleaner has quickly become a favorite among homeowners with septic systems, especially those looking to: And because it's totally non-toxic, there's no risk to pets, kids, or groundwater. The 2-in-1 Toilet Bowl & Septic Cleaner is available now on Media Contact Company Name: Dr. Pooper Enterprise LLC Contact Person: Chris Denny Email: Send Email Phone: 8323016075 Address: 27122 FM 2920 City: Hockley State: Texas Country: United States Website:

Trump administration scraps guidance on emergency abortions
Trump administration scraps guidance on emergency abortions

Globe and Mail

timean hour ago

  • Globe and Mail

Trump administration scraps guidance on emergency abortions

The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it would revoke guidance to the nation's hospitals that directed them to provide emergency abortions for women when they are necessary to stabilize their medical condition. That guidance was issued to hospitals in 2022, weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court upended national abortion rights in the U.S. It was an effort by the Biden administration to preserve abortion access for extreme cases in which women were experiencing medical emergencies and needed an abortion to prevent organ loss or severe hemorrhaging, among other serious complications. The Biden administration had argued that hospitals – including states with near-total bans – needed to provide emergency abortions under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. That law requires emergency rooms that receive Medicare dollars to provide an exam and stabilizing treatment for all patients. Nearly all emergency rooms in the U.S. rely on Medicare funds. More people in U.S. are obtaining abortions, but fewer are traveling to other states for it, survey finds The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it would no longer enforce that policy. The move prompted concerns from some doctors and abortion rights advocates that women will not get emergency abortions in states with strict bans. 'The Trump Administration would rather women die in emergency rooms than receive life-saving abortions,' Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. 'In pulling back guidance, this administration is feeding the fear and confusion that already exists at hospitals in every state where abortion is banned. Hospitals need more guidance, not less, to stop them from turning away patients experiencing pregnancy crises.' Anti-abortion advocates praised the move, however. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America, said in a statement that the Biden-era policy had been a way to expand abortion access in states where it was banned. 'Democrats have created confusion on this fact to justify their extremely unpopular agenda for all-trimester abortion,' she said. 'In situations where every minute counts, their lies lead to delayed care and put women in needless, unacceptable danger.' An Associated Press investigation last year found that, even with the Biden administration's guidance, dozens of pregnant women were being turned away from emergency rooms, including some who needed emergency abortions. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which investigates hospitals that are not in compliance, said in a statement that it will continue to enforce the federal law that, 'including for identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.' But CMS added that it would also 'rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration's actions.' The Biden administration sued Idaho over its abortion law that initially only allowed abortions to save the life of the mother. The federal government had argued before the U.S. Supreme Court last year that Idaho's law was in conflict with the federal law, which requires stabilizing treatment that prevents a patient's condition from worsening. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a procedural ruling in the case last year that left key questions unanswered about whether doctors in abortion ban states can terminate pregnancies when a woman is at risk of serious infection, organ loss or hemorrhage.

Mexican girl is granted humanitarian parole to continue receiving lifesaving care in US, lawyers say
Mexican girl is granted humanitarian parole to continue receiving lifesaving care in US, lawyers say

Winnipeg Free Press

timean hour ago

  • Winnipeg Free Press

Mexican girl is granted humanitarian parole to continue receiving lifesaving care in US, lawyers say

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A 4-year-old Mexican girl who receives lifesaving medical care from a Southern California hospital was granted permission to remain in the country weeks after federal authorities said she could be deported, her family's attorneys said Tuesday. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security granted the girl and her mother humanitarian parole for one year so she can continue to receive treatment she has been getting since arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2023, according to a copy of a letter received by Rebecca Brown, an attorney for the family. An email message was sent to the Department of Homeland Security seeking comment. The decision came after the family said they were notified in April and May that their humanitarian parole was being revoked and they would be subject to potential deportation. The Trump administration has been pushing to dismantle policies from President Joe Biden's administration that granted temporary legal status for certain migrants and allowed them to live legally in the U.S., generally for two years. The girl was taken to a hospital upon arriving on at the U.S.-Mexico border with her mother in 2023 and released once she was stable enough. She receives intravenous nutrition through a special backpack for short bowel syndrome, which prevents her from being able to take in and process nutrients on her own, and lawyers said the treatment she receives is necessary at this stage for her to survive and isn't available in Mexico. Humanitarian parole, which doesn't put migrants on a path to U.S. citizenship, was widely used during the Biden administration to alleviate pressure on the U.S.-Mexico southern border. It was previously used on a case-by-case basis to address individual emergencies and also for people fleeing humanitarian crises around the world including Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos during the late 1970s. In Mexico, the girl was largely confined to a hospital because of her medical condition, according to her mother, Deysi Vargas. After joining a program at Children's Hospital Los Angeles, she can now receive treatment at home in Bakersfield, California, and go to the park and store like other children, Vargas has said. Lawyers said the girl's medical treatment, which requires 14 hours a day of intravenous nutrition, will not be necessary indefinitely but that she is not at the point where she could live without it.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store