Are you healthy or simply not sick?
If this sounds like a trivial question, then how can one answer it?
Isn’t it interesting that we will easily and specifically mention our ill-health along, but we will not mention health during the way it provokes an unequivocal understanding of what is meant? Does it even matter if there is a definition of the term somewhat amorphous? Well – we wouldn’t dare travel and see a doctor in the absence of “symptoms” – an exception to your “normal” appearance or feel? In fact, not, health care systems do not care about health, they are interested in apparent repair transfers from a “normal” state. In other words, health care should be referred to more appropriately as “patient care”, because the system does not have answers to healthy people. Thus, the definition of “patients” is quite clear, it is the visual or laboratory limit of physical or mental condition or normal function. There are many different ways of expressing, but the substance is unequivocally equivalent.
Now try to define “health” and “be healthy” through a term that evokes a global equation understanding. Obviously challenging, most dictionaries confine the term something like “absence of disease”. But isn’t there much more to health than the lack of a recognizable disease? Apart from clear physical health, what about a more hidden mental state, mental health, spiritual health, social health, and intellectual health – not all that is necessary for a state of well-being? But does this mean “health” is that the lack of all problems (perceived) and concerns – then “health” will be synonymous with happiness? So reduced to physical health there is a good spectrum of mystery if you feel tired or tired – are you sick or are you healthy? Is being overweight a disease or simply a symbol of conscience? Are you sick because you want to read glasses? What about wrinkles and sagging skin – is aging a disease? This thought opens pandora’s box: what is the traditional rate of aging – where is it – and who is that power to set the standard for “normal”?
Are you healthy or healthy?
Researchers at Rice University tried to set standards for measuring health. They concluded that health is measured in three meanings:
1- No physical pain, physical disability, or a potentially fatal condition
2- Emotional well-being.
3- Satisfactory social performance.
But they acknowledge that there is no single criterion for measuring the health status of people or groups, which can be evaluated by the observer. It follows that the “health” assessed during this method is relative and subjective, when what we actually want to understand is:
I am quite healthy – objectively measured, not self-assumed relative compared to others. We do not compare our pain or deformity with arthritis or cancer to neighbors. Quite the contrary: we imagine and strive to look young and skinny because the person is on the quilt of a magazine. Such natural cravings are the foundation of the ever-growing beauty and anti-aging industry, even in the absence of objective standards.
That’s exactly the point: if we’re not going to determine health but just ill health – we won’t show up as if that idol no matter what! Because if we measure our health through the pontoon, we will wait for work to identify the symptoms, thus depriving ourselves of maximum vitality and amazing appearance and preservation.
If we achieve a globally valid definition of absolute health – we will actually begin to provide real health care, that is care to maintain – or revive standard health.