Exploring the differences in the health of the rich and the
poor may lead to interesting conclusions. Being rich does not guarantee health;
being poor, does not guarantee health either.
By definition, what is health?
"At the creation of the World Health Organization (WHO), in 1948, health was defined as being 'a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity'." (1)
Note that there are broader definitions of the word health that include the mental, emotional, physical and spiritual realms.
The WHO definition of health has undergone a degree of transition, but interestingly, even in 1986, it did not address or include the spiritual realm of one's person-hood.
The WHO, in the “Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion”, said that health is "a resource of everyday life, not the objective of living. Health is a positive concept emphasizing social and personal resources, as well as physical capacities." (2)
When health is a resource of everyday life, then non-health would imply the absence of a resource of everyday life. Health is not the objective of living; living is one of the objectives of health. Saying health is a positive concept suggests that non-health is a negative concept. Most would agree with that.
If health emphasizes social and personal resources, that might be regarded as an in-direct reference to the rich and the poor, as well as the basis for a distinction between the two.
Note that this is an exercise in the analysis of a definition.
How do the rich and the poor achieve health?
"Overall health is achieved through a combination of physical, mental, emotional, and social well-being, which, together is commonly referred to as the Health Triangle." (3)
Even this assumption about how overall health is achieved omits the spiritual realm of one's person-hood.
What does it mean to be rich?
What does it mean to be poor?
What it means to be rich or poor is relative to whatever aspect of life one is considering, at that particular moment in time. In other words, is it physical, mental, emotional or social well-being related?
Is being rich or poor not also related to the spiritual realm of humankind?
In our era, because of the rapid spread of the H1N1 pandemic, public health is becoming a growing concern for people, which includes both rich and poor.
Is there a definition of public health?
The 1920, "Winslow" definition of public health is "the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life and promoting health through the organized efforts and informed choices of society, organizations, public and private, communities and individuals." (4)
Interestingly, while this does not include any acknowledgement of the spiritual realm, it makes no distinction between rich and poor in relation to their health status.
"It is concerned with threats to the overall health of a community based on population health analysis. The population in question can be as small as a handful of people or as large as all the inhabitants of several continents, for instance, in the case of a pandemic." (5)
The human spirit does not appear to enter into the picture in even one of the above definitions. One must ask whether rich or poor can ever have true health or true public health, apart from the healthy state of the human spirit of individuals or the collective whole of humankind.
If one regards health as a resource from which both rich and poor draw, what is the source that makes it a resource?
Spiritual health is important to life. Spiritual health has to do with the concept of love. Rich and poor can have and demonstrate varying degrees of love in relation to God and one another. Can those who are not spiritually in tune with God and others, be truly healthy or manifest health to others?
Why is the spiritual realm of human health always ignored? Is that a serious error in judgment on the part of humankind? The spiritual realm places rich and poor on the same plateau with regard to health. In that respect, there are no differences.
Each person has the choice of being spiritually healthy or not being spiritually healthy. That decision may determine his or her actual physical, mental and emotional health, which in turn will affect his or her social health status.
Is health the objective of living?
Is living the objective of health? That would appear to be more accurate.
Maybe we should look closer at this definition of health, which suggests "a state of complete physical, mental and social well being, not just the absence of disease or infirmity."
Completeness includes all possible realms of person-hood. It should not omit the spiritual realm.
Is this omission an error in terms of a definition or has humankind erred in terms of health for the rich and the poor? Spiritually, the poor can be a whole lot healthier than those who are rich. In this respect, there may be differences.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment