Our understanding of health has been expanding for decades but was boosted by COVID-19. The list of variables influencing health feels infinite, and what constitutes an actual health intervention by health professionals is no longer implicit. This paper explores if the discipline of global health is furthering the expansion of health and what that means for patients and healthcare providers who implement global health initiatives. Using the WHO Global Health for Peace Initiative (GHPI) as one example, the author explores if there is an increasing tendency to leverage healthcare for non-direct health outcomes. A particular focus is given to implementation impact for humanitarian populations if the medical mission is transformed from being an ‘end goal’ to a ‘means to another end’. MSF has been analysing the potential operational evolution and ethical implications of the GHPI. In this analysis the author brings together views on how global health is framed in the literature and why it is currently so popular as a specific field, followed by an analysis of three potential ethical risks at the implementation level: i) health as a means to another end, ii) upholding medical neutrality, and iii) supporting the health workforce.
This paper is a preprint version of a chapter published in “Challenging Medical Neutrality: Healthcare ethics in armed conflict and other complex settings”, accessible here.