What is the WHO definition of health, and why it needs to change
- sflevac
- Feb 14, 2021
- 2 min read
Updated: Apr 2, 2021
According to the government of Canada website:
Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. The bibliographic citation for this definition is: Preamble to the Constitution of WHO as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19 June - 22 July 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of WHO, no. 2, p. 100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948. The definition has not been amended since 1948.
The government of Canada argues that this definition is simplistic and states:
The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion affirms social, economic and environmental aspects of ‘health’. This important Canadian document states that, in order to be healthy, “an individual or group must be able to identify and to realize aspirations, to satisfy needs, and to change or cope with the environment”. In this way, health is seen as a resource or an asset that helps us lead our everyday lives. Health is seen as a positive concept that emphasizes social and personal resources, as well as physical capacities.
This site goes on to discuss the determinants of health, defining them as broad factors that affect our health.
Public Health Ontario defines Health Equity thusly:
“Health equity is created when individuals have the fair opportunity to reach their fullest health potential. Achieving health equity requires reducing unnecessary and avoidable differences that are unfair and unjust. Many causes of health inequities relate to social and environmental factors including: income, social status, race, gender, education and physical environment.”
In 2011, an article in the BMJ stated that the WHO definition is outdated as it does not address chronic illness. Huber et al suggested emphasizing “the ability to adapt and self manage in the face of social, physical, and emotional challenges.”
In 2014, Bircher and Kuruvilla wrote about individual, social, and environmental determinants, suggesting that public health and health care in general should take the opportunity to address these to help improve not only an individual’s health, but that of society. “Health is a state of wellbeing emergent from conducive interactions between individuals’ potentials, life’s demands, and social and environmental determinants.”
All of this refutes the very simplistic definition of health described by the WHO over seven decades ago. How should one define health? Is it only the absence of disease, or is it much more complicated yet easily defined?
Ereshefsky (2009) suggests that there are three main views: Naturalists who refute giving values, normativisits believe health and disease are or reflect values and judgments, and hybrid theorists look to combine both the naturalists’ and the normativists’ points of view.
Obviously, there has been a lot of review of the WHO definition and attempts to define in a determinedly better way. One’s perspective is that definitions do and can change subjectively over time and depending on circumstances such as location, age, relative health, etc. The WHO, in light of their heightened presence during the past year, must update their antiquated definition of health to ensure continuing relevance and significance in our world.
References
Ereshefsky, M. (2009). Defining ‘health’ and ‘disease’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences,
Volume 40, Issue 3, pp. 221-227.
Comments