ArticleJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2025
Pandemic treaty textual analysis: ethics and public health implications.
Article in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inclusion of antimicrobial resistance in a pandemic agreement: why it matters and what comes next?Health affairs scholar · 2026Review
- Nationalism in New Zealand Media During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed Methods Study.Public health ethics · 2025Article
- The WHO Pandemic Agreement's Missing Epistemic Architectures: Infodemics and Antimicrobial Resistance as Examples.Asian bioethics review · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe World Health Organization's convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response, often referred to as the 'pandemic treaty', was established with principles to guide implementation. The treaty's underlying ethic was cosmopolitan in intent, emphasizing equal value of all people with obligations stemming from shared humanity.
methodsThe principles of the working draft of 13 July 2022 and the proposed agreement of 22 April 2024 were compared by textual analysis for content and sequence. Changes were analysed using the ethical framework of cosmopolitanism and associated public health implications identified.
resultsCompared with the working draft, the proposed agreement consolidated principles such as solidarity and reduced specific obligations, weakening ethical demands. Sovereignty was elevated to the cardinal principle, while obligations tied to equity and human rights were less specific, reflecting a shift from cosmopolitan intentions and a reduced emphasis on cooperation for shared public health goals.
conclusionsChanges made through the pandemic treaty negotiation process suggest ethical amnesia, undermining global equity, justice, and solidarity with consequences for public health and pandemic preparedness. Strengthening obligations in the treaty text is essential to embed a collective motivation for cooperation necessary for effective public health before the next pandemic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.