Defining Health

In 1946, the World Health Organization defined health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” (WHO, 2005) This definition aimed to encompass a holistic approach towards the concept of health. This concept has been further developed and extended to other categories, including those who live with chronic disease or with long-term conditions, or even the ability to interact with one’s own personal and social environment. (Schermer, 2021) Although, the concept has been expanded, there has not yet been a definition that has been widely accepted. The WHO definition has been criticized for “not being able to be used for scientific measurements, and for being far too broad and contributing to medicalization.” (Schermer, 2021)It is thought that the definition is too ambitious. As chronic diseases are on the rise, the idealism of complete well-being is unreachable. In the ongoing academic debate, there are differing views on how to define health, with increasing attention on plurality and contextually of notions of health.

Schermer has examined the idea of viewing health and disease as monist and plural contexts. Instead of searching for general definitions, it is proposed to stipulate context-specific definitions (2021). Historically, definitions of health and disease have been monist in nature and aimed at correctly identifying all conditions as healthy or diseased. The problem with a monist definition of health and disease is in concept analysis. Norby (2006) argues that conceptual analysis cannot yield a pure abstract truth about our common health concepts. He argues definitions of disease are never truly analytic because the way people classify objects is not a dichotomous process (all or nothing) but rather a matter of degree. (2006) Plural concepts have been proposed to better understand the diversity in meaning of health and disease. The issue with plural concepts of health and disease is communication across health domains. “Working with a plurality of health and disease concepts may raise confusion where context meet, or when multiple functions are at stake.” (Shermer, 2021) It is widely accepted that different speakers can use and understand a word in different ways.

Contextual definitions of health are also problematic because there are many different meanings of health and disease (Shermer, 2021) these are used by different professions in different contexts, making it hard to capture a single contextual definition. ( Haverkamp, 2018) argues health definitions are practice-specific. A health definition can guide particular practices, goals and formulating priorities. The idea of creating a role-specific (contextual definition of health) is appealing because it can distinguish between the multitude of aspects within the healthcare industry.

Having a contextual definition of health and disease is relevant today. The ability to use a definition in relation to its practical function and context will allow for clear access to healthcare and guide clinical practice. It provides a definition that allows clinicians to determine those in need of medical attention and those that do not. In the social context of health a contextual definition will distinguish a person’s rights to access economic benefits. A contextual definition allows us to look at the function of the definition, and what context the definition will be used in.

Constitution of the World Health Organization. In: World Health Organization: Basic documents. 45th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005. [Google Scholar]

Haverkamp, Beatrijs, Bernice Bovenkerk, and Marcel Verweij. 2018. A Practice-Oriented Review of Health Concepts. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 43 (4): 381–401. https://doi.org/10.1093/ jmp/jhy011. (Haverkamp, 2018)

Nordby, Halvor. 2006. The analytic-synthetic distinction and conceptual analysis of basic health concepts. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 9 (2): 169–80.

Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization 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.

Schermer, Maartje, and Edo Richard. 2019. On the reconceptualization of Alzheimer’s disease. Bioethics 33: 138–145.