Opinion: The WHO - a cost effective option

Tell me if I'm crazy

It may be unorthodox to suggest we should exit the World Health Organisation but tell me why it doesn’t make good sense.

Instead of the millions of dollars we send to Switzerland every two years, we could rely on our own health authorities and expertise to decide:

• When we are threatened by a health emergency

• If we need to lock down

• How long we need to close schools and businesses

• What our doctors may or may not prescribe

• What they may or may not say

What does the WHO do for us presently?

The WHO representative office, serving the South Pacific is based in Fiji. 

Its role is to act as a catalyst and advocate for action on health issues of public concern. Its involvement in public health activities includes research, evaluation, resource mobilisation and awareness raising (a polite way of referring to its call to all countries to address ‘disinformation’).

Savings made by exiting the WHO could help repair and invest in our own health system - which, I am told from the coalface, is broken. We could pay our nurses more for a start, employ more caregivers and then we could help our Pacific neighbours directly. 

(The WHO gets funding from member states, such as New Zealand, paying membership dues. Assessed contributions are a percentage of a country’s gross domestic product - the percentage is agreed by the United Nations General Assembly. Member States approve them every two years at the World Health Assembly.) 

Email: kerimolloy2@gmail.com