Search

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has been criticised during the current pandemic on a number of grounds, almost all of which are unwarranted. They include its failure to include Taiwan, its delayed declaration of 'pandemic' and its subservience to China. These criticisms fail to distinguish between the WHO as an international organisation (IO) constituted of 194 member states who determine its membership and policies and the WHO Secretariat as a technical body mandated to seek the good health attainment of all people, regardless of their location, nationality, religion, ethnicity or ideological orientations, within the responsibilities delegated by the member states. This article considers the validity of the criticisms within the context of the WHO's history, constitution and delegated responsibilities. It argues that global health needs a global institution and the WHO needs support against ill-informed or self-interested critiques. Political issues that concern individual member states can only be addressed by member states, and states alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]