Are you healthy – or not sick? If this sounds like a trivial question, then how do you answer it? Isn’t it interesting that we can easily and specifically talk about our long health, but we cannot talk about health in a way that arouses an unmoved understanding of what is meant? Is it important if there is a definition of a rather amorphous term? Well – we won’t dare to go and see a doctor without your “symptoms” – the exception of your “normal” display or feeling? Of course not, the health care system does not care about health, they care about the transfer of mending manifests from “normal” conditions. In other words, health care must be more precisely referred to as “sick treatment”, because the system does not have an answer for a healthy one. As a result, the definition of “sick” is rather clear, this is a reduction in the condition or normal physical or mental function that is visible or experienced. There are many different ways of expression, but the essence is not at all the same.
Now try to define “health” and “healthy” with the terms that arouse universally equivalent understanding. Clearly challenges, most of the dictionaries limit the term as something like “the absence of a disease”. But there is no more health than the absence of an identified disease? Apart from clear physical health, what about more hidden mental health, emotional health, spiritual health, social health, intellectual health – not all that is important for the state of welfare? But whether it means “health” is the absence of any problems and problems and any worries – it will be “healthy” identical to happiness? Even reduced to physical health There is a broad ambiguity spectrum, if you feel tired or tired – are you sick or healthy? Does body weight add to the disease or just a sign of hedonism? Are you sick because you need to read the glasses? What about sagging wrinkles and skin – aging sickness? This thought opened the Pandora box: What is the normal aging rate – where – and who’s the authority to set a benchmark for “normal”?
Are you really or relatively healthy?
Researchers at the University of Rice have tried to define parameters to measure health. They conclude that health is measured in terms of
L) The absence of physical pain, physical disability, or a condition that tends to cause death
2) emotional well-being, and
3) satisfying social function.
But they recognize that there is no single standard measurement of individual or group health status, which can be assessed by observers. It follows that “health” is assessed in this way relative and subjective, while what we really want to know is:
Am I truly healthy – measured objectively, not subjectively considered by relative comparison with others. We do not compare our pain or disability with neighboring arthritis or cancer. Instead: we visualize and try to look young and slender as people on the cover of the magazine. Such natural cravings are the foundation of beauty and anti-aging industries that continue to grow, even with the absence of objective standards.
That is exact: if we cannot define health but only poor health – we will never look like any idol! Because if we measure our health by weaning, we will wait to act until we can define symptoms, thus seizing ourselves to get and maintain extraordinary vitality and an amazing appearance.