As the disease is easy to understand, is the concept of health so easy? You do not have disease, so can you say that you are healthy? Think about it, it's not that simple. Maybe you don't have the weight, the performance you should have according to your age. Others don't think you're healthy, you're not. So how to define health? Let's take a fairly universal definition, as stated by the World Health Organization (WHO). Accordingly, health is not the absence of disease or infirmity; Physical, mental and social, being completely good in these three areas is health. It is a beautiful definition. But what is the confusion of our understanding? I think, while digging for earthworms, the snake came up. Actually, we were thinking about our body. Now the mind and society have joined together and twisted the whole thing.
Not everyone is satisfied with this definition of the World Health Organization. Especially those who are 'professional', they do not want such an ideological definition. They want a definition that will fall within the limits of their special knowledge. So according to them, there is no disease or disability, that is health. Then we can easily measure whether someone is healthy or not, and if not healthy, we can treat the disease or disability. It is a negative definition of health. In this regard, the definition of the World Health Organization defines health in a positive sense. In response to the criticism of experts, what will the positive definition group respond? They will say, we are not satisfied if only one person is cured. We want to see if he has the desired characteristics according to his age, weight, performance etc. They will ask, if someone is not in good mind, it affects the body as well. If the mind is not good, people are fully functional?
If someone's social status is not good, can he be psychologically good?
As humans, isn't it what we all want to be in a good social position with a healthy body and mind? I don't think anyone would disagree with that statement. But the definition of health goes beyond the existing health care system to encompass the entire financial-social-political system; There are no limits to any expertise. But we want to say health like this. This difference between the definition of health of the World Health Organization and the definition of health of experts raises the question, how is the definition of a subject determined? We can see that the characteristics of the subject that we want to define is one of its determinants. Another determinant is not immediately visible. That is, for what purpose we want to define it. The difference between experts' definitions of health and the WHO's definition reflects more a difference in purpose than in the characteristics of the subject. As we have already seen, the WHO definition has a political dimension. That is why this definition could be accepted when the political situation in the world was very favorable to a public welfare ideal. In the current world political situation, it would not be possible for the World Health Organization to formulate such a definition of health. This definition of health was adopted by the World Health Organization as Clause 1 of the 'Alma Declaration' on 'Primary Health Care'. (The link to the declaration is added at the end of the article.) The International Conference on Primary Health Care, organized by the World Health Organization, was held on September 6-12, 1978 in Almaty, then the capital of the Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan (now Kazakhstan). I have quoted clause 1 below. The political aspect of the declaration is clear in this.
0 Comments