The World Health Organization developed a term for health in 1948 that reads, “being in a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being”. It was later added that the individual claiming health must also be free of disease or infirmity (WHO, 2005). To further define, we need to deconstruct the meaning of ‘well-being’. In terms of well-being, there have been two definitions conceptualized that juxtapose one another; subjective, and objective well-being (Dodge and Daly, 2012). Subjective well-being is outlined as the fulfilment you gain as an individual through eudaemonic well-being and hedonic well-being (Martin-Maria, 2017 and Steptoe, 2015), Eudaemonic well-being consist of finding the meaning of life and understanding the journey of self-growth. Hedonic well-being is the satisfaction of one’s own life (Martin-Maria, 2017 and Steptoe, 2015). To compare, objectively, well-being is defined as quality-of-life indicators in relation to material resources, such as; income, food, housing, education, political voice, health, social networks, and connections (Western, 2016). Objective well-being has similar concepts to the Social Determinants of Health – which include, economic stability, environment, education, food, community support and health care accessibility. To relate back to the 1948 WHO definition of health, the term well-being can be broken down into two aspects, meaning the WHO definition needs to be modernized. To add, it has been 75 years since the WHO has defined health – so much research has been developed surrounding health since then that the WHO needs to consider. Currently, there are 3 different definitions that could be used interchangeably or simultaneously when describing health. Firstly, health is the absence of any disease or impairment (Satorius, 2006), secondly, health is, individuals having the capacity to execute the demands of daily life. Thirdly, health is a complete balance of self (within and between) determined along with equalizing their social and physical environment (Satorius, 2006). Although these are more current definitions of health, much like the WHO definition, there are concerns of implementing each one. To begin, to define health as the nonexistence of disease means that a medical professional can affirm a person healthy or not. The consideration of technology in medicine was not merely identified in the creation of this definition because, as tools to detect diseases become more advanced, and individual could be healthy today and diseased tomorrow. Personal feelings about one’s health is not relevant within this definition – being ‘healthy’ is based on the criteria the medical professional has provided (Satorius, 2006). Thus, if looking at a population, it would be determined how healthy individuals are by medical professionals counting who is in the absence of disease and who is not – this would govern the state of health in that population. Moving on, the second definition is a slight extension of the first definition of health, however, individuals who may be dealing with abnormalities that can be identified as a disease may not actually be ill. In contrast, there may be people who do not appear to be in the presence of disease but may have a psychological disorder. However, being in the presence of a disorder that is not identifiable by the public, does not mean you are not getting treated and cannot function within the means of society. Also, there are many people who suffer from diseases that are undiagnosed, meaning, they do not know they have it and do not get treatment for it – if those individuals are functioning as expected in their age and gender group of the general population (Satorius, 2006), then they are considered healthy. Lastly, the last definition really commences the conversation of mindfulness and how it can vary amongst different people. This definition reveals that, even in the presence of disease, establishing an internal equilibrium (Satorius, 2006), that outlines how they can get the most from their life, determines them healthy. The use of this definition has more of an advantage compared to the other two because the disease is not replacing the individual’s health. The individual is working simultaneously with medical professionals to alleviate any disease and find balance within themselves within their environments. The reason why this definition plays into mindfulness is also because it is not just about the presence of disease, but how the patient feels and how this affects their daily lives (Satorius, 2006) – the disease needs to be viewed in the context of the person who has it to make a true judgement about their health. All in all, the definition of health is something much more complex than a few sentences conceptualized in the late 40’s. It was outlined within the literature that there are many contemporary criticisms about the original definition by the WHO. Health is not merely just the absence of disease – health can be broken up into multiple streams, such as physical, mental, spiritual (balancing oneself), environmental, social, etc., and not only can it be broken into streams, the individuals’ thoughts and feelings need to be considered as well. The WHO definition, in contrast with the 3 definitions of health summarized, outlined that the only way to know if you are healthy is by the affirmation of a medical professional. Meaning, if you do not have the means to seek professional help/advice, then you are unaware of any disease or sickness that may be present. Another contrast and critique of the original definition is that not all sicknesses and diseases are recognizable. Perhaps there is a cognitive or neurological disorder that is unseen to the public, therefore that individual would be deemed healthy in the eyes of the public. By modernizing the term ‘health’ we can incorporate the aspect of mental health – considering how prevalent it is today. Another criticism of the original term is the generalization of health – how do we define disease? How do we define well-being? In what scope are we reviewing these terms? As mentioned, well-being stems from the patient themselves, not necessarily from the affirmation of the healthcare professionals. What may be seen as well-being for one, may not be the same for another which is why it is important to consider the balance of the patient who has a disease. Thus, when developing a new definition for health, reflecting on all aspects that create healthy living, healthy habits and behaviours, and healthy minds is crucial to a proper understanding of the true term of health.Click here for the resources