Abdullatif - I think that you have answered your own question to a certain degree. The term 'health' can be such a 'subjective' and 'nebulous' concept - that it is very difficult to define it. Definitions of health, like health promotion, will range from the full spectrum of a 'simple' medical model of health i.e. 'physical health as the absence of illness' - through to a more complex social model of health that views health in the context of 'community empowerment'. Then there are those that discuss health as a more 'ethereal' concept that cannot even be measured i.e. existential/meta-physical health. Personally, i do not think that there is a 'single' definition of health that covers all situations.

Dean- Generally yes, in my opinion too there is no single definition that encompasses all situations and components of health. Still, some definitions are better than others.

"Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity."

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.

http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/print.html

Another angle is to look at health as a point in the continuum between ease and dis-ease

Hello! Ii think that it can be useful to consider the distinction between the notion of core health issue and health related issue.... than it is indeed difficult to find out a clear definition for both the concepts. however, the WHO Preamble is not really comprehensive and during the drafting Committee of the WHO Constitution, the States decided not to insert an autonous definition of the right in the text adopted. So i reckon that it would be better to start from ICESCR's right to health.

in my mind, this topic is not of simple solution!

I've just rosen a similar question yesterday, if you are still interested meaby we can try to unify the questions ;)

sorry for my meddling; anyway i whis that this could help!

valeria

Thanks a lot Valeria. Yes, I am fine with with unifying them. Go ahead.

Yes Valeria - I agree. In my mind, despite their best attempts, reverting back to WHO definitions is always a flawed exercise. The organisation has to be 'all things to all people' - and that usually just dilutes the more relevant interpretations.

There will always be as many definitions of health as there are many different individuals and organisations involved in health and that is understandable. We all serve different roles in the health field and our definitions reflect our roles. If one is a highly specialised surgeon, his definition of health will be very different from a psychiatrist an a sociologist. The WHO definition tries as Dean argues to be "all things to all people" in an attempt to merge our different views. As a result, it will be criticised by all of us. My view I that we must accept that there is no perfect definition of health and there is also no wrong definition.