Chisholm, WHO and the pursuit of the public's health

The author's ambiguity also translates in other ways; indeed whether through indecisiveness or concern for impartiality [John Farley] lets some doubts persist that lead to vague interpretations and sometimes give the impression of a dreamy, impractical man with wooly ideas on such issues as poverty, family planning, peace, social services and medical coverage. That opponents during the Cold War might have thought this and used it against him may be understandable, but that another Canadian author should even today think that [George Brock Chisholm] was "a bit of a second rater" and that there was "mieux" (his italics) is untenable.1 Yes, like most people, Chisholm had his weaknesses and idiosyncrasies and he did not hold a masters in public health, but he knew how to surround himself with the best experts of the time and had confidence in youth. His directors of finance and publications were both aged 38 when appointed, and I recall when he officiated at our medical graduation, his passionate message was: "safeguard your youthful vision and work health into social justice." And as his objective was the public's health rather than traditional public health, his being from outside the club should be seen as an advantage, as indeed it proved to be.