How do you define your own health? What do you value and associate with being healthy? Now, from a global perspective, define health. Does your definition change?
Health is defined by the World Health Organization as “a complete state of physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (2006). This holistic definition of health was formulated in 1948 and is still the current definition being used to describe health, influence policy, and guide research. Quite an influence for one word, but not unexpected, as health is a fundamental right of every human.
Nobile (2014) suggests that the current definition of health is unattainable and the use of the word “complete” is difficult to measure and corresponds more closely to happiness rather than health. Health and happiness are often connected, however they are very distinct. With advancements in health care, people living with chronic illness is the norm. More commonly, people have the resources, resiliency, and adaptability to manage and cope living with an illness or disease. Therefore, the use of the word “complete” is unrealistic and does not reflect our current state, especially in Canada. In 1948, the prevalence was of acute illnesses and diseases, whereas now aging with chronic disease is more established.
In a study by Ashcroft and Van Katwyk (2017), defining health should take into account new resources and strategies that can assist one to continue to have agency – the ability to have active and meaningful participation, despite potential limitations. The Canadian Association of Social Work follows the WHO definition of health but also extends their conceptualizations beyond this definition with an emphasis of health as a personal and social resource that can be used to manage one’s surroundings (Ashcroft & Van Katwyk, 2017). Defining health as a resource is a positive concept and enables people to increase control and improve their well-being. I believe this extension to the definition of health fosters resiliency, enables agency, and promotes adaptability.
Is including “adaptation” in a new definition of health appropriate on a global scale? Nobile (2014) highlights that a definition that only emphasizes adaptation and does not include social and environmental conditions is not sufficient. The effect of social determinants of health should be addressed to capture populations who have degrading social and environmental conditions. An inner capacity for adaption would not be sufficient enough to overcome an illness in extremely poor conditions with limited resources to healthcare.
In summary, it is difficult to have a single definition as health is on a continuum, involving many influences and dimensions. An updated, global definition should reference the human ability to adapt and self-manage. It should also emphasize the social determinants of health and political economy perspectives, whereby health is recognized as an individual and collective by-product of culture, race, beliefs, social, economic, and physical environments (Ashcroft & Van Katwyk, 2017). A new definition of health could spark new research and improve the way we approach promoting health and well-being. Incorporating aspects of adaptability and the social determinants of health, as demonstrated by the Canadian Association of Social Work, would provide a more relevant and inclusive definition.
References:
Ashcroft, R., & Van Katwyk, T. (2017). Joining the global conversation: Social Workers define health using a participatory action research approach. British Journal of Social Work, 47(2), 579–596. Retrieved from https://spark.adobe.com/page/ZuGEdiA1lglgP/
Nobile, M. (2014). The WHO definition of health: A critical reading. Medicine And Law, 33(2), 33–40. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27359006
WHO. Constitution of the World Health Organization. 2006. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf
Comments