Questions Revised

Questions
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

Section A: Table Questions
Did IHR revision occur?
1995-2002- No
WHA (World Health Assembly) proposed the change of IHR in 1995 but the revision did not occur (Fidler & Gostin, 2006).
2003- 2005- Yes
IHR revision was implemented in 2005 (Fidler & Gostin, 2006).
Were there disease outbreaks going on that caused fear among states?
1995-2002- Yes
The international spread of communicable diseases such as yellow fever, plague, and cholera pushed WHA to revise IHR (Fidler & Gostin, 2006).
2003- 2005- Yes
The outbreak of (ARS) Acute Respiratory Syndrome and tuberculosis in 2003 hastened the revision processes (Fidler & Gostin, 2006).
Did states think that the IHR needed to be revised?
1995- 20002- Yes
Member states believed that the IHR needed to be changed since it was unable to deal with the outbreak of communicable diseases globally (IHR Revision archives, 2002).
2003- 2005- Yes
Member states believed that the IHR revision could not only address disease but also global public health issues (IHR Revision archives, 2002).
Did the US think that the IHR needed to be revised?
1995- 2002- No
The US did not believe IHR required to be changed because it could be difficult for the national government to implement the regulation since the local and regional governments regulate public health laws (IHR Revision archives, 2002).
2003- 2005- Yes
The US agreed to the revision process once member states were given more roles and responsibilities and the IHR structure was changed (IHR revision archives, 2002).

Did states agree on the way in which the IHR should be revised? In other words, did they generally agree on the means?
1994- 2002- No
The member states could not agree on the means because WHO spearheaded most of the changes (IHR Revision archives, 2002).
2003-2004- Yes
They agreed on the means in the second period after being given the leading role and a chance to issue directives (IHR revision archives, 2002).
Did WHO leadership favor a major IHR revision?
1994-2002- No
At the beginning of the process, WHO concentrated on structural issues and notification, thus, overlooking other critical public health issues (IHR Revision archives, 2002).
2003- 2005- Yes
The leadership favored a significant revision once member states were given leading roles in the second period (IHR revision archives, 2002).
Did the lower level WHO staff who were in charge of the IHR revision favor a major revision?
1994-2002- Yes
The lower level WHO staff were responsible for making structural changes to IHR (IHR Revision archives, 2002).
2003- 2005- Yes
They favored IHR revision because their central role was to convince member states to participate in the process (IHR revision archive, 2002).
Section B: Other questions
How does the 2005 IHR differ from the previous version?
IHR greatly differ from the previous version since it addresses all events that might become a threat to the public health. For instance, this framework encourages member states to not only offer a report on the outbreak of communicable diseases but also to assess the possible impact of different types of hazard that occur naturally or intentionally. This version is better than the previous one which only focused on reporting incidences of cholera, yellow fever, and plague (Fidler & Gostin, 2006). Notably, the new legislative framework gives states public health sovereignty and incorporate other global issues such as the international human rights principles. The new IHR also differs from the old one because it contains more obligations for states which were expected to carry out a surveillance (Fidler & Gostin, 2006).
Did the revision process in the first period (1995-2002) look different from the second (2003-2005)? For instance, how closely were states consulted about the revision in the first period compared to the second?
The revision in the first period was quite different compared to the second period since WHO played the lead role in revising the regulations. The director of the National Center for Infectious Diseases stated in a response letter that the member states were supposed to spearhead the revision process through leadership and offer direction (IRH Revision archives, 2002). It is after this suggestion that the state members got more involved in the second phase of the revision process. Notably, the revision process was more organized and objective in the second period than in the first period.

In the first period (1995-2002), which parts of the IHR did staff focus on changing?
The first period of the IHR revision mainly focused on structural issues and notification. For instance, the staff focused on revising and expanding IHR old practices and the development of an IHR practical handbook (IRH Revision archives, 2002).
In the second period (2002-2005), which parts of the IHR did staff focus on changing?
In the second period, the staff concentrated on identifying a risk-based approach that would help them use resources on the prioritized problems and diseases. They also researched new concepts such as syndromic reporting that would increase the effectiveness of the regulations (IRH Revision archives, 2002). This approach helped them to make changes to the vital process of IHR.

References
Fidler, D. P., & Gostin, L. O. (2006). The new International Health Regulations: an historic development for international law and public health. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 34(1), 85-94.
World Health Organization. (2002). IHR Revision archives. PDF.