The World Health Organization (WHO) at 75

 An editorial in Nature considers the complicated history of  the World Health Organization. 

The WHO at 75: what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. The World Health Organization is emerging from the peak of the pandemic bruised. Its member states must get back to prioritizing universal health care.

"When thinking about the WHO’s 75 years, it’s worth remembering the time and circumstances of its creation. In the aftermath of the Second World War, the newly established United Nations and its specialized agencies, including the WHO, were designed to future-proof the world from another global conflict. Around 80 million people died during the two world wars, many from famine or disease.

"The WHO deserves more money for its core mission — and more respect

"The WHO’s founding constitution states unequivocally: “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.”

"And yet, the agency’s creators chose not to prioritize robust systems of universal health care that would meet these goals. This absent focus is one factor in why infectious diseases continue to impact populations in low- and middle-income countries. The eradication of smallpox in 1980 was a big win. But for other diseases, the agency and its donors have been unable to reach targets, including in the elimination of HIV and AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.

"The WHO does, however, have a consistent record for establishing itself as the go-to organization for setting global standards for the efficacy, safety and quality of vaccines and medicines. As we have seen during the pandemic, the agency is central to alerting the world to new infectious diseases, helped in no small measure by the revolution in biomedicine and health data, especially genomics."

In general I think the WHO does important work reasonably well, but I have reservations about their policies concerning blood and transplants, which seem to me to reflect some now outdated repugnance to the complexities of “Substances of Human Origin (SoHO)." (Not that these issues don't remain complex.)