The World Health Organization was founded in 1948 and is a specialized agency of the United Nations whose main objective is “the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health.” The organization provides technical assistance to countries, sets international health standards and guidelines, and collects data on global health issues through the World Health Survey. The WHO has led global public health efforts including the development of an Ebola Vaccine and the near-eradication of polio and smallpox. The organization is run by a decision-making body composed…
Read moreStatistics are shown for this demographic
Parish
Response rates from 217 Non-Civil Parish or Community voters.
75% Yes |
25% No |
62% Yes |
20% No |
9% Yes, but only relative to the amount that other countries contribute |
3% No, it has shown to be ineffective |
2% Yes, but decrease the amount |
2% No, fund national and local programs instead |
1% Yes, and increase the amount |
Trend of support over time for each answer from 217 Non-Civil Parish or Community voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Trend of how important this issue is for 217 Non-Civil Parish or Community voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from Non-Civil Parish or Community voters whose views went beyond the provided options.
@B3H865Q2wks2W
Yes, but decrease the amount to preserve our economy, while still maintaining good relations with other organisations and countries.
@B2PJ87Y 3wks3W
Should Brazilian president as shown for counts as relatives issues by Australia prime minister hadn't heard from changes by amounts
@9T6KPQT6mos6MO
The UK's funding of the WHO seems driven by international relations and security, reflecting the country's commitment to global cooperation and enhancing its standing on the world stage. While the WHO does provide benefits, such as coordinating responses to global health crises, it is far from perfect and often subject to political influences. Given the UK's own health challenges, it can feel like the funding serves the organization and global optics more than direct benefits to UK citizens. This focus on the spectacle of international involvement can appear misaligned with pressing domestic health needs.
@9F58ZK42yrs2Y
They should contribute to the funding. Not solely fund it, which this question implies.
@9D6RN5Q2yrs2Y
Decrease the amount and fund more national and local programs instead
@9QQQRCJ9mos9MO
I don’t want to have to give money to countries that their own people don’t step up and help. I still believe our country should help European countries.
@9QFZV8D9mos9MO
As long as the money is proportional to what other countries pay and there is a strong say in how it is spent.
Stay up-to-date on the most recent “World Health Organization” news articles, updated frequently.
Join in on the most popular conversations.
