Ran across this definition of mental health, supposedly from the WHO

[HereSince1628]

The World Health Organization defines mental health as "a state of well-being in which
every individual realizes his or her own potential,
can cope with the normal stresses of life,
can work productively and fruitfully,
and is able to make a contribution to her or his community."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-szabo/lets-stop-assuming-people_b_5865634.html

It was presented in an article about a contribution to a conference during suicide prevention week...

Personally, I am not so certain about this definition ... it reminds me of the "keep it positive" statements from university committees in the 90's.

It certainly sounds very rosy, and a person with these attributes might appear mentally well, but, honestly setting aside the geo-cultural ambiguity of what normal implies in criteria 2, I'm leary of the 3rd and 4th criteria.

These criteria aren't strictly personal attributes but are also matters of social acceptance and opportunity provided by others. A mentally well person with interests/life-style deviant from cultural norms could be pathologized. A person's history, rather than current mental health status could interfere with social acceptance and socio-economic opportunity. Moreover, these criteria are quite subject to change with 'normal' physical decline associate with senescence.

It also seems to me that working productively and making contributions to society can be done in spite of the presence of illness. Does doing so negate/diminish a illnesses/disorders that don't impact the workplace or social area, and give institutions (both public and private) an excuse to ignore a need for assistance?

[cbayer]

1. As someone who is not a fan of the terms mental health or mental illness, I like this.

This redefines the term as having nothing to do with whether someone has a psychiatric disorder. It addresses function, and that is a good place to have it, imo.

[HereSince1628]

2. Function/Dysfunction is classic pathology, not where my concern lies...

My concern is that function related to pathology/illness/wellness, are -personal- qualities which are typically considered independently of socio-economic factors.

An examination of the functional criteria as stated show they are dependent on factors -outside- the individual. I don't mean to argue that departures from mental wellness cannot be exacerbated by socio-economic, or political forces. Certainly, they are.

My concern is that psychiatric/psychological evaluation of personal wellness shouldn't depend upon factors that can be imposed on the person by outside forces/outside context.

As presented, the criteria for defining of an individual's health aren't truly centered on features of that individual but rather are dependent upon society providing the person a functional productive place with community. That's surely important to how communities function, and prehaps even how communities create stresses and triggers of psychiatric conditions, but it doesn't really seem to be a measure of the individual, per se.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. What's wrong with that?

We are a social species, and mental health is largely meaningless outside of how we work within the society.

As with physical health, there is "functioning" measure of whether or not we're "working" as in able to, say, feed ourselves or get around, but we have always looked a mental health as largely an ability to properly socialize.

Perhaps at some point we can properly distinguish the two, as we do with physical health and fitness.

[HereSince1628]

6. The problem is two-pronged

Last edited Sun Sep 28, 2014, 07:59 AM - Edit history (1)

Meeting these criteria does NOT mean a person is mentally well.

It just means the dysfunction that defines their illness don't impact on these criteria. Mentally ill people are commonly productive members of society. Furthermore dysfunction is varyingly severe, and dysfunction can be limited in its domains/context. It's pretty common for mentally ill persons to still be demonstrably 'productive and fruitful and to make contributions to society (and I am not sure I even know of a single physical illness that's been defined on the basis of relative value to others?).

Not meeting these criteria does NOT mean a person is mentally unwell.

Replacing a symptom produced by your body with something that depends on the vicissitudes of others in society isn't psychology, it's a statement on the consequences of sociological fairness and chances of life.

Abilities cannot be demonstrated without opportunity to produce said activity so that it can be measured. The mentally ill are often shunned and the shunning can last far longer and produce greater and more enduring dysfunction than an iteration/recurrence of mental illness.

Certainly a person who has a mental disorder may fail at one, multiple or all of these criteria, but such a backward correlation is not dependable as defining illness.

[Ilsa]

4. Kick and Rec for further discussion. nt.

[enough]

5. Those are very good questions you're asking. (nt)