Comments on: Accidental conversations

By: G Cameron

G Cameron — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:08:27 +0000

Interesting comments!

Let me add another: perhaps the weakness is not in our definition of health but in our definition of spirituality. What if spirituality meant more than self-realization? What if it meant the full expression of latent moral potential? What if it required the exercise of individual responsibility, and not interventions by professional therapists?

Just saying…

By: Blair

Blair — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:51:29 +0000

Interesting editorial… I shared it with my group. I agree with a number of points in it, and find the quote you included inspiring.

I think the challenge when “defining spiritual health in an inclusive way that allows assessment, evaluation, and ‘therapy’” is not the act of defining, but the action necessitated by that definition (as I think you are implying).

The current definition of health (“physical, mental and social well being”) allows for spirituality to be incorporated into each of those three dimensions. By adding spirituality to this definition of health, the WHO would have to act on it, and ensure that methods are in place to not only ensure, but promote spiritual health… i’ve got a lot of self-identified “non-spiritual” friends that would balk at that idea. I’ve got “spiritual” friends that don’t feel excluded by the current definition.

The blame is with health professionals/officials/lay people who, the author states, prefer to “steer as far as possible away from discussions on religion, for fear of igniting latent conflicts or encroaching on a taboo subject.”

Is it necessary to add spirituality to the definition of health? Or is it just necessary that we expand our vision (not definition) of health to include a spiritual dimension?

By: Dad

Dad — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:23:16 +0000

Hi Blair & Geoff –
interesting debate for a rainy saturday! Especially since I am moving into the 2nd half of life like your acquaintance. Hindus recognize 4 sequential phases of life (if things go according to plan): student, marriage, ‘intensive spiritual practice’, and ‘letting go’. I could use some Hindu discipline!
I agree that a key reason people adhere to a religion is to be part of a community – with all the varied richness that means. An attractive community will grow.
Relationships and community could be considered as components of ’spiritual health’. The challenge is define spiritual health in an inclusive way that allows assessment, evaluation, and ‘therapy’.
I just googled the WHO health definition and found an interesting editorial that commented:
“one might venture to include in the dimension of spiritual health at the individual level elements of generosity, charity, solidarity, self-abnegation, concern for others, self-sacrifice, self-discipline, and self-restraint. At the societal level, indicators might be manifestations of solidarity, equity, justice, sexual equality, unity in diversity, participative decision-making, and power sharing. ”
hmmm…

Vader J. Spiritual health; the next frontier.
European Journal of Public Health, Vol. 16, No. 5, 457

By: Blair

Blair — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:11:40 +0000

Very interesting. I was just discussing yesterday with my graduate class the definition of “health”. We were presented with “physical, mental and social well-being” as a working definition. My professor asked where “spiritual” fell within this, and we came to realize that it incorporates each of these three components, maybe leaning a little to one side or the other, depending on the spiritual discipline. I agree with the statement that religion can provide that “social” dimension of human health.