A step backward for the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases and injuries
As the Trump Administration announces another withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), I’m reminded of that famous (alleged…) Mark Twain quote: “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”
When the first withdrawal was announced in 2020, I wrote an op-ed focused on Australia’s stake in the decision. Today, the implications feel even more global and deeply concerning. This severing of ties undermines health diplomacy, scientific collaboration and the coordinated responses needed to address the most pressing health challenges of our time – emerging pandemics and the escalating health impacts of climate change are frequently highlighted, but of equal importance is the rapidly rising burden of non-communicable diseases and injuries.
The WHO plays a unique and indispensable role in translating evidence produced by researchers worldwide into global norms, standards and guidelines. These, in turn, shape health policies, systems, and practices across the globe. And while the examples I share here are from our work at The George Institute for Global Health and our many partners, the WHO is far more than a single organisation – it is the collective expertise and effort of people worldwide. This collaboration underpins its capacity to improve health equity and drive progress on health challenges worldwide, including in high-income countries.
For us, this is not an abstract concept - it’s something we’ve seen first-hand through our collaborations with the WHO and the tangible impact of its work:
Other efforts, such as co-hosting the 15th World Safety Conference in New Delhi and contributing to the World Health Assembly’s resolution on sepsis, further illustrate the far-reaching impact of WHO partnerships.??
领英推荐
While the WHO has been transformative, it is not without its challenges. Reforms to strengthen its accountability, transparency, and sustainable financing are essential. Despite its imperfections, the WHO remains a crucial platform for coordinating collective action on urgent health issues that transcend national borders.
The decision by the US to withdraw from the WHO is a deeply troubling setback, particularly when seen alongside the indefinite suspension of its National Institutes of Health (NIH) research-grant reviews – a move that threatens the pace of innovation in biomedical science and health research globally. The NIH is the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research, and its critical role complements the WHO’s work in advancing health worldwide. Together, these developments risk undermining the collaborative progress needed to address the world’s most urgent health challenges.
The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the critical need for collective action – no country can tackle global health threats alone. A well-funded, robust, and independent WHO is essential for preparedness, response, and the development of evidence-based policies that save lives.
We must reaffirm our commitment to the WHO as a cornerstone of cooperation and advocate for a more effective WHO. ?
Supporting the WHO isn’t just about protecting “global health” – a phrase that means different things to different people. It’s about working towards a healthier, more equitable, and more resilient world for all.
#WHO #HealthEquity #HealthDiplomacy #GlobalCollaboration #StrongerTogether
Founder of Dilaab Digitals ?? ? Helping Coaches and Solopreneurs focus on the big picture | Follow for posts about virtual assistance, delegation, and outsourcing | PH 100 Brightest Minds Under 30 by StellarPH
1 个月Such a thought-provoking perspective on the US withdrawal from the WHO. The global health challenges we face require strong, united efforts, and partnerships like those with the WHO are essential in driving meaningful change.
Senior professor at Karolinska Institutet
1 个月While world is talking about sustainability & UN institutions are endorsing it, UN organisations are most unsustainable as shown by US withdrawal from WHO. As for WHO, it has grown out of proportion & has become a development agency more like a large international NGO. WHO has moved from its basic role of normative institution. The extra budget has led that the institution is not democratic but more of colonial nature as extra budget often is provided by ex colonial or their piggy back partners. This is perhaps the same story for other UN institutions. UN has become irrelevant as it is unable to douse fire in neibourhood, stopping war is a remote possibility. WHO should go back to its original role & leave development work to countries ( who will do it better & cheaper) and other organisations.