Investigation of The Universal Definition of Health

Introduction

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This means beauty does not really exist on its own but is instead produced in the eyes of the observer. In the same way, happiness, justice, and peace are all subject to opinion. Health is one of these matters. Different people have different opinions as to what the definition of health is. This being said, is a universal definition of health actually possible? Based on personal experience, this extended essay aims to discuss the current definitions of health and whether a universal definition for health is possible in my opinion.

Personal Experience and Observations

A few months back, I lost a significant part of my life – my grandmother. On her journey toward health, I was by her side for the most part and could observe her eventual deteriorating, holistic health. This experience had a significant effect on me and has affected my perspective on the definition of health. My granny was going through a rough time emotionally and began to look older than usual, sadder, and she got sick more frequently. Even though medical professionals could not explicitly find anything physically wrong with her at the time, the plan was to practice medical pluralism by integrating medical treatment with alternative medical treatment in order for her health to be restored.

Medical pluralism can be defined as “the employment of more than one medical system or the use of both conventional & complementary & alternative medicine for one or more conditions at the same time” (Wade, 2009). Different healers offer different diagnoses to people. People then make the decision on whose advice they are to follow based on what makes sense in their heads. The WHO definition of health is based solely on the biomedical model of health, which does not recognize alternative forms of seeking health care. In this case, we tried Traditional Chinese therapy, “metamorphosis,” and an Islamic treatment called “Ruqya.”

The Dimensions of Health

Knowing that she had a broken heart and a history of depression, we were convinced that her illness was purely emotional and that she would recover eventually. We did not consider the importance of these emotions even though it is one of the dimensions of health. The emotional dimension is accompanied by the physical, intellectual, social, and spiritual dimensions. Emotional well-being is of great importance as our mental state can determine our thoughts and actions.

The physical dimension is what is most noticeable and shows our physical well-being. This would include our diet, nutrition, etc. The intellectual dimension can also affect our thought processes and ideas. The social dimension can be altered by our friends and family as well as our surroundings and circumstances and is therefore extremely important as well. Lastly, the spiritual dimension affects the way we love and care. Religion and culture play a role here, as certain practices aim to affect health such as alcohol use, etc. On close introspection, I now realize that none of these “dimensions” were sound when it came to my grandmother.

Healthcare System and Health Inequality

In time, her legs began to swell and she could no longer walk. She was clearly experiencing medical issues. The cardiologist now diagnosed her with heart failure. She was immediately admitted to a hospital under the “Public sector.” Contrary to popular belief, the overall healthcare provided at this hospital was a positive experience. Doctors and nurses were passionate about their jobs and went the extra mile—all at a minimum cost. This was something that stood out for me. If only the disparity between public healthcare and private healthcare could be eradicated throughout South Africa, our quality of life may improve significantly, possibly reducing our country’s death rate. Health inequality can be defined as “differences in health status (outcomes) or in the distribution of health determinants between different population groups” (Braveman, 2006).

Her stay in the hospital was not short-lived. Even though the healthcare available to her was good and her physical health seemed to have improved, her stay in the hospital and medicinal side effects resulted in her mental health being affected. She was now in a depressive state again. This decreased her will to live and caused her to lose her will to fight for her survival.

Link Between Physical and Mental Health

Doctors once thought that behavioral issues created the link between physical and mental health and therefore believed that perhaps medications for physical illnesses were not being taken due to depression, etc. Studies are now showing this is not the case, and there is a clear link between physical and mental issues (Sartorius, 2007). This raises the question regarding medicalization. Medicalization can be defined as a process by which social phenomena come to be seen & treated as illness. Many still do not believe that depression has become medicalized, which is advantageous in this case. Eventually, she passed away.

Critique of the WHO Definition of Health

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “Health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (World Health Organization, 1948). I do not completely agree with this definition of health due to the use of “complete.” At the beginning of my paper, I believed that the physical, mental, and social components of an individual are interlinked and should all be somewhat intact so that one may be able to enjoy the best standard of health possible. My experience then showed me that it is absolutely important for these components to work together and has therefore redefined my personal understanding of health as opposed to the WHO definition. If one personal experience can alter my opinion, can there be a standard definition of health?

Changing Perspectives on Health

The WHO definition was definitely onto something when this definition was created, but I feel as if not all components were considered carefully back then. Circumstances and conditions presented themselves differently over seventy years ago. For example, acute diseases were the most important, and chronic diseases resulted in early death. Nowadays, chronic diseases are becoming more prevalent, so people are not always “healthy.” Hygiene, nutrition, and medical interventions have improved, and so acute issues are managed more easily, and people with chronic diseases have a longer lifespan. Chronic diseases are therefore not considered in this definition. Diabetes and disabilities are other issues that are not catered for in this definition.

The WHO definition also does not account for cultural factors that affect health and treatment. Health can therefore be seen as social, as what is viewed as ‘illness’ to one may not be an ‘illness’ to another. There have been many oppositions to the WHO definition of health with substantial evidence; however, this definition has still not been changed. This could be due to its immeasurable components. The WHO definition was critiqued by many, but it also became “conventional wisdom” for others.

Conclusion

There are many definitions and models of health that we know of. The Medical Model, the Wellness Model, the World Health Organization Model, the Environmental Model, etc. It is therefore clear that one universal definition for health is not possible and it is left up to the individual scrutinizing it. Thus, the quest for a universal definition of health remains a complex and multifaceted endeavor, deeply influenced by personal experiences and cultural contexts.

References:

• Braveman, P. (2006). Health disparities and health equity: Concepts and measurement. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 167-194.
• Sartorius, N. (2007). Physical illness in patients with mental disorders. World Psychiatry, 6(1), 3-4.
• Wade, D. T. (2009). Holistic health care: Who or what is it? Clinical Rehabilitation, 23(8), 789-790.
• World Health Organization. (1948). Preamble to the Constitution of WHO as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19-22 June, 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of the World Health Organization, no. 2, p. 100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948.