Opinion: Straight-talking doctors and WHO are what we need – By ‘TUNJI AJIBADE
Do doctors obey medical profession’s rule on how they earn a living at the expense of saving lives? Much as I appreciate the work medics do, the question is pertinent in view of the COVID-19 outbreak. Recently, I pushed an argument (The PUNCH, April 17, 2020 – “Covid-19: WHO goofs, Tozali TV rescues”). I noted that the World Health Organisation advised people to not ingest Chloroquine in combating the symptoms of COVID-19, but it recommended no alternatives. This messaging is incomplete; it won’t be effective. Without believable alternatives, most people would ignore the WHO’s advice.
Equally, I submit that WHO, medics, and the media should add to their messaging that people should eat the right things in order to boost body immune system. Why? Doctors say strong immunity is basically what helps Covid-19 victims recover. I received several commendations for making these observations. But a Nigerian argued that asking WHO or doctors to inform people the proper thing to ingest amounted to “idiocy.” His short reason? It’s against the rule of medical profession. He then made long abrasive references to the governor of my state, Engineer Seyi Makinde, and the Chief Medical Director of the University Teaching Hospital, Ibadan. But I like such critics – short on reasoning, long on insults. They hardly think things through since they impatiently deploy insults to brusquely dismiss others. I enjoy engaging them in debate to show what they overlook.
There’s a pandemic and millions are expected to die if certain measures aren’t immediately implemented. So, everyone sacrifices something in order to help. Professional sportspersons accept wage reduction. IMF is traditionally for less government spending, but it urges the Nigerian government not to spare any funds in ensuring that Nigerians are safe from this pandemic. WHO suggests measures to prevent the spread of Covid-19. Implementing some of them requires that governments grab sweeping powers. Citizens in western countries overlook this abnormality in order to help save lives. Governments also deploy soldiers to construct more hospitals. It’s not their duty, but rules are suspended to save lives. Lately, Queen Elizabeth II cancelled the traditional gun salutes for her birthday. She says saving lives comes first.
Furthermore, governments and opposition parties in western countries argue over what’s done right and what’s not in the battle against Covid-19. In the UK it’s agreed that investigations will be conducted into such matters when the scourge is over. Medics in the UK demand constant supply of personal protective equipment if they must save lives. They aren’t concerned that rules might be broken to achieve this, in spite of government’s protests over how difficult procurement process has become.
In the US, under pressure the federal government went to China to engage in unfair trade practices. There it paid three times the initial amount for a medical supply that was already paid for and about to be airlifted. President Donald Trump later boasted that he ordered US officials to do anything possible to get supplies. Governments in Europe engaged in the same unfair practices, causing supplies to be diverted on the high seas. Governments in the US and Europe seized medical supplies that private manufacturing companies wanted to export. These companies didn’t sue because lives had to be saved. Across the world, people are ingesting dangerous substances believing such would keep them safe from Covid-19, and they are dying. WHO that’s responsible for global health advises people to not ingest Chloroquine. I ask why WHO doesn’t say what people should ingest instead. A Nigerian says it’s against medics’ rule, and it isn’t WHO’s itinerary. But whoever thinks things through knows that if it’s not in WHO’s itinerary to include in its messaging what people should ingest, then it shouldn’t be its itinerary telling people what they shouldn’t ingest. WHO’s failure to talk clearly to people on what’s right to ingest in order for their body immunity to either recover or fight off Covid-19 is a monumental oversight, equal in proportion to how computer makers forgot to make computer Year 2000 complaint.
Now, I return to whatever rule guides what WHO and medical doctors advise or don’t advise. WHO’s known to have sidelined its rules under desperate circumstances. Many people agree with the body regarding this. Recently, BBC asked Bill Gates if some rules would have to be suspended in order to get a vaccine for Covid-19 within eighteen months instead of ten years. Gates agreed, talking about the necessary “trade-offs” if we must quickly return to the pre-Covid-19 days. When dealing with global health, WHO has its roles and takes pride that it carries them out. Such include setting timeline for stages in vaccine research, and pronouncing when a vaccine is ready to be administered on humans. When the ebola disease broke out in Africa and people died in thousands, WHO overlooked strict adherence to the rule, permitting clinical trial of a vaccine on humans. Lives were thereby saved. In the Covid-19 case, strong immunity is the guaranteed lifeline mankind has for now; but someone says doctors’ rule and WHO’s itinerary forbid them from including in their messaging something as simple as, “Eat the right food to stay healthy”.
The critic also claims it’s not WHO and doctors’ responsibility to recommend what people should ingest for the purpose of taking care of themselves from the “inside”. Yet when doctors prescribe drugs, they advise patients to eat food first, and sometimes the specific kind of food. When dysentery, diarrhea etc. happen, doctors demonstrate on TV how to prepare the oral rehydration therapy that people ingest. So what’s the difference when it comes to WHO advising people to not ingest Chloroquine, but immune-boosting food instead? We know medical doctors who, even in normal times, take care of their health by concentrating on organic food rather than drugs which they recommend to their patients. But in this pandemic, someone says an itinerary makes doctors or WHO to not have the responsibility of guiding people on how to take care of themselves from the ‘inside’ which should help the body fight off Covid-19.
I dwell strongly on the point about messaging that concerns “eating right” because past experiences left huge impression on me. As a teenager and an ‘A’ level student, I heard of an appeal to donate blood. My classmates and I decided to donate blood. Medics took everyone’s blood samples, dropped them in reagents, and out of thirty of us, I was the only person whose blood was considered to be in prime condition enough to donate, except for one other classmate who was disqualified because of his frail physique. Few years ago, I observed the eating pattern of one of my friends. I warned him that, at their age, he and his wife were eating what was wrong for them. Later, his wife came down with serious health challenges. They consulted a doctor who informed them that what they ate was the problem, and natural food material was what would resolve the health problem, not drugs. My friend paid a doctor for a piece of advice which I had previously offered him free of charge.
Despite the deaths, lack of verified drug to treat Covid-19, and the personal sacrifices everyone makes to save mankind, a critic says it’s perfectly acceptable that a rule or itinerary should forbid medics and WHO from clearly messaging people on the right things to ingest. We know recommending drugs to patients is central to how doctors earn a living. I’ve stated that an oversight occurred in WHO’s messaging. A critic says that’s idiocy. I want WHO to publicly say its itinerary permits it to offer advice on what people shouldn’t ingest, but the itinerary forbids it from saying what they should ingest.
I want WHO to say that while President Trump wrongly advises people to ingest disinfectants, its itinerary forbids it from rightly telling people immune-boosting food is the better option. I want doctors to say rule guiding how they earn a living forbids them from publicly advising people on the right things to ingest even in the face of the pandemic. It would contradict their claim that, as medics, saving lives comes first. Such inhumane standpoint would add another justification to why I feel so fulfilled holding a Ph.D in a different field, as against being a medical doctor. Punch
