The Lancet Defines Health
Health is a complex topic that entails many different things. It can be a state of being physically and emotionally well, or it could refer to the social and economic well-being of a community. Health can also be defined as the ability of a person to realise expectations and meet needs, or as the capacity for people to generate new ways of living in times of change or adversity.
Historically, most definitions have focused on disease and illness, with the emphasis placed on medical treatment and care. However, in the wake of the global crisis of 2009, the editors of The Lancet called for a definition that recognises broader issues and reflects current understandings of genomics, climate change and sustainability.
The committee that produced the definition emphasized that health is a process rather than a state. This allows improvements to focus not only on the reduction of disease, disability and death but also on an individual’s capacity to respond to and recover from illness, their perceptions and attitudes about their illnesses, and their level of functioning both now and in the future. In addition, the committee recognised that the health of a community is dependent on more than just its health care system; the quality of jobs, housing, schools, food, water and sanitation are all important contributors to the health of communities.
Another aspect of the definition focuses on avoiding unfair differences in health outcomes, and this requires an explicit recognition that some observed differences are systematically avoidable, and that others occur as gradients across populations ranked by social position. The absence of this feature from most definitions leaves the door open to claims that some observed differences are inevitable (as has been argued in relation to racial differences in health outcomes), and it can fuel a narrative of blaming the victims.
Most readers of health and medical articles are looking for something helpful, whether it is information on a specific condition or a clear explanation of how to take medication correctly. They also expect honesty, and a tone that is not condescending or pushy. An overly simplistic approach can lead to disengagement and an impression that the writer has not taken into account their own experience of a condition or disease.
The committee’s definition is a useful tool for health promotion, and it should be considered by anyone who writes about health in the public domain. It is not without its limitations, and some of the issues it raises should be explored further in other discussions, but it provides an excellent starting point for a discussion of the meaning of health in the 21st century. This discussion is likely to continue as more research is undertaken in this area, and as the world faces increasing challenges. A clear understanding of what we mean when we talk about health will help us to create better and more sustainable health systems, and to make the most effective use of our scarce resources.
Health is a complex topic that entails many different things. It can be a state of being physically and emotionally well, or it could refer to the social and economic well-being of a community. Health can also be defined as the ability of a person to realise expectations and meet needs, or as the capacity for people to generate new ways of living in times of change or adversity. Historically, most definitions have focused on disease and illness, with the emphasis placed on medical treatment and care. However, in the wake of the global crisis of 2009, the editors of The Lancet called for a definition that recognises broader issues and reflects current understandings of genomics, climate change and sustainability. The committee that produced the definition emphasized that health is a process rather than a state. This allows improvements to focus not only on the reduction of disease, disability and death but also on an individual’s capacity to respond to and recover from illness, their perceptions and attitudes about their illnesses, and their level of functioning both now and in the future. In addition, the committee recognised that the health of a community is dependent on more than just its health care system; the quality of jobs, housing, schools, food, water and sanitation are all important contributors to the health of communities. Another aspect of the definition focuses on avoiding unfair differences in health outcomes, and this requires an explicit recognition that some observed differences are systematically avoidable, and that others occur as gradients across populations ranked by social position. The absence of this feature from most definitions leaves the door open to claims that some observed differences are inevitable (as has been argued in relation to racial differences in health outcomes), and it can fuel a narrative of blaming the victims. Most readers of health and medical articles are looking for something helpful, whether it is information on a specific condition or a clear explanation of how to take medication correctly. They also expect honesty, and a tone that is not condescending or pushy. An overly simplistic approach can lead to disengagement and an impression that the writer has not taken into account their own experience of a condition or disease. The committee’s definition is a useful tool for health promotion, and it should be considered by anyone who writes about health in the public domain. It is not without its limitations, and some of the issues it raises should be explored further in other discussions, but it provides an excellent starting point for a discussion of the meaning of health in the 21st century. This discussion is likely to continue as more research is undertaken in this area, and as the world faces increasing challenges. A clear understanding of what we mean when we talk about health will help us to create better and more sustainable health systems, and to make the most effective use of our scarce resources.