"Health" Redefined

In 1948, the WHO redefined the definition of health shifting the focus from an absence of disease to a more encompassing definition that included social, mental, and physical components (Oleribe & et al., 2018). It stated: “Health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (WHO Constitution, 2020).

While the 1948 definition was a step in the direction, it has received its fair share of criticism from those whose appetite for a more exhaustive definition was not suppressed. Some have criticized the WHO definition for its unrealistic wholesome aspiration to achieve “complete” well-being (Huber, 2011), while others have condemned it for leaving out other contributors of health such as tolerance (Brook, 2017) and economic (financial) indicators (Oleribe & et al., 2018).

Since its birth in 1948, there have been many attempts at providing a more elaborate definition. One contemporary definition suggests redefining health as: “a satisfactory and acceptable state of physical (biological), mental (intellectual), emotional (psychological), economic (financial), and social (societal) wellbeing” (Oleribe & et al., 2018).

If we compare the WHO’s definition of health to a tree seedling, the latter definition above is still only a sapling and not a full-grown fruit-bearing tree.

Oleribe’s definition is superior in a sense that it acknowledges that components of health need not be “complete” as required by the WHO definition, rather it lowers the expectation to “a satisfactory and acceptable state”, acknowledging that health cannot be defined on a black and white spectrum. Complete physical, mental, and social well-being would be ideal; however, in the real world, it is unachievable and not measurable. It essentially places a burden on society and the medical field, rather than setting a realistic and achievable target.

Oleribe’s attempt at defining health remains lacking in a sense that it continues to define it based on a limited number of discrete indicators that may not apply to all societies while omitting to include other indicators that may be more relevant in other societies such as the emphasis on spiritual health among the monks.

I believe – as a prerequisite to defining socially convoluted topics such as health – one must acknowledge that any attempt at finding a universal definition will be an overstretch and not realistic. The interactionist approach, which “emphasizes that health and illness are social constructions: Physical and mental conditions have little or no objective reality but instead are considered healthy or ill conditions only if they are defined as such by a society” (Barkan, 2012) is the most accurate definition that’s anywhere close to the reality.

In conclusion, I would define health as a satisfactory and acceptable state of physiologic (measurable biological indicators) and non-physiologic (subjective indicators) well-being as defined by society.

References

Barkan, S. (2012). 18.1 Understanding Health, Medicine, and Society. In S. Barkan, Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World, Comprehensive Edition. Saylor Academy.

Brook, R. H. (2017). Should the Definition of Health Include a Measure of Tolerance? JAMA Network, 585-586.

Huber, M. (2011). HEALTH: HOW SHOULD WE DEFINE IT. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 235-237. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/23051314

Oleribe, O. O., & et al. (2018). Health: redefined. The Pan African Medical Journal, 292.

WHO Constitution. (2020, 10 11). Retrieved from World Health Organization: https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are/constitution