An article in the British Medical Journal (Huber, 2011) makes the argument that the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 1948 definition of health is behind current times and themes in healthcare. The article reviews that at the time, WHO’s definition was advanced and relevant; “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being” (World Health Organization, 2006). This definition was an improvement from the prior attempt; Health was previously defined as the absence of disease or infirmity (Huber, 2011). However, Huber(2011) argues that there are three reasons the 1948 definition has shortcomings;
The definition leads to the medicalization of society. If we lived in ‘complete health’, we would be unhappy more often than not; building policies around this definition will lead to screening and detecting abnormalities that might never actually lead to illness.
Health patterns have changed; there are many more chronic illnesses across the world, and this working definition declares people with chronic diseases as ill.
The definition is not operational; the status of complete is not measurable.
The article continues on to describe how this inadequate definition impacts health policy (Huber, 2011). Lerner (2019) does a deep dive into the historical definitions of health; more specifically the author focuses on how newer attempts at a definition avoid the dualistic categorization of health; that is, healthy or not healthy. The One Health approach encourages making a definition that includes,; humans, ecosystems and animals (Huber, 2011). The whole theory is based on balance, and ties in historic influences on what ‘balance’ is. For example, the author references the humoral theory and the belief in the balance of elements in the body and liquids in the body (Huber, 2011).
A newer and more appropriate definition of health is not going to be easy to nail down; there are many stakeholders and considerations to make. Nordenfelt (2007) touches on the intricacies of a definition in his article when he states:
These questions are not simply academic. They are of great practical and thereby ethical concern. The consequences for health care diverge considerably, not least in economic but also in social and educational terms, depending on whether health is understood as people’s happiness, or their fitness and ability to work, or instead just the absence of obvious pat logy in their bodies and minds. There are adherents of all these ideas in the modern theoretical discussion on health (p.5).
While the development of a more modern definition is needed, it must be one that considers many viewpoints; this makes it harder to define in a way that all stakeholders will agree. However, a good definition is important for the future of health policy, education and patient care.
Comments