We live in an imperfect world. As a result of this, less than pleasant and desirable things like illness and disease are a part of the life people live every day. But man is nothing if not resilient, which is why despite these glaring truths, we bare our teeth and continue to search for a lasting way to stay in good health and free of disease. One institution that has been crucial and indispensable to the achievement, progress, and realization of this goal and ideal is the World Health Organization (WHO).

Founded in 1948, this medical body has been central to the coordination of the world's health resources in the battle against illness and disease and the quest for good health. With the presence of this organization, the world has a sure and decisive means of readily dealing with sudden outbreaks of disease and controlling the situation effectively and efficiently such that minimal loss of life is ensured.

More than this, WHO has become essential to helping the world set a health standard that people in their respective communities and countries can meet for better health. In essence, the World Health Organization has done much to secure its place as a vital and crucial resource if the people of the planet are to lead healthy productive lives now and in the decades to come.

However, some would point out that in recent times, their performance where the lives of people have been at stake has been less than stellar. The Coronavirus pandemic shook the world to its very core. A lot of people attribute the fact that the impact of the pandemic was so severe in the United States because WHO wasn’t preemptive in their actions and decisions.

While this can be largely classified as finger-pointing, when anyone critically views the way events unfolded in retrospect, it becomes possible to see that things might have ended differently if the organization had not dropped the ball here and there.

But as the saying goes, hindsight is 20/20 and no organization, no matter how structured, could have accurately predicted and worked out how things would progress with the insufficient data at hand back then. Also, this argument offers little insight into why the former President of the United States, Donald Trump announced his decision to pull the US out of the World Health Organization. This step was ultimately reversed by President Joe Biden. However, if the US was to withdraw from WHO, they would not be the first country to do so. In the past, countries like the USSR and Albania have done the same, citing different reasons. 

However, it is worth mentioning here that this line of action is one that doesn't even bear contemplation as the consequences of going through with it are great and reach far into the future. Essentially, there are no real perks to the US cutting ties with WHO, only short-term and long-term boomerangs.

Even though many would argue that the money the US currently pays the WHO would be better repurposed to help the country, this short-term benefit is heavily outweighed by the fact that America would almost immediately lose the edge it has in the world of healthcare as a result. All the innovation and development in the health care system that the country currently boasts would be unsustainable without the continued presence and influence of the World Health Organization.

Additionally, breaking away from WHO would also do something far worse: it would send the wrong signal to many other countries of the world that the health and medical well-being of their citizens isn't so high a priority. This is unacceptable as the world has struggled to get to a place where human life is beginning to receive the respect and appreciation that it deserves. Separating from the organization on the part of the US would slow down this progress by decades, if not centuries.

So, should the United States withdraw from WHO? The answer to this is a firm NO because it is clear that no real good can come of such a rash action.