I think in these cases, which are psychosomatic, it can be difficult for medical providers to have a meaningful contribution. Their role is to medically diagnose and treat the affected body system. And so it can be quite frustrating for both the proivder and the patient when a patient presents with a condition that does not require direct treatment of the affected body system. In these cases of a pychosomatic condition, individuals are still suffering but require a different approach to treatment. I wonder if the discussion of these condidtions can be better approached and validated by clinicians for effective treatment and reduced frustration among providers and patients.

I think this discussion is important to keep in mind as we discuss a patient's condition and consider the expeirence of their illness - not only the physical aspects and treatment plans, but the connotations surrounding their disease and how those may impact their incentive to seek care, trust medical providers, and precieve themselves.

I wonder how the context of post-WWII Europe influenced the inclusion of mental health and well-being in this definition of health. The individuals who constructed this definition had certainly suffered recent, overwhelming loss. Perhaps this enlightened their definition to include not only physical wellness and the absence of disease, but also the importance of safety, security, and the freedom to thrive (work, prosper, enjoy, etc.)

This idea of "health for all" is fascinatingly contradictory to the rhetoric of the time and even more interesting, still such a point of contention today. The battle between the human right to health care and a fear of communism/socialism is ongoing as the two are contradictory. In order to have health care for all and to truly care for the poor, health care must not depend on one's income, and insurance ought not depend on one's employment status. I think if we deem something to be a human right, the govement is well positioned to fund that. However, this requires the cooporation of all voting members of a democratic society to work well in spite of the structure of healthcare funding. For example, in the US where healthcare is privatized, the quality of care is unmatched, but prices are astronomical. But in countries with socialized healthcare, the price is affordable yet the quality often suffers.

I used to work for a mapping software company (ESRI). One of the users of our product demonstrated how they were mapping the distribution of trees in a city and its direct correlation with both socioeconomic levels and health outcomes. Areas of lower household incomes invariably had fewer trees, therefore leading to higher rates of asthma and other chronic respiratory problems among community members (presumably because trees consume carbon monoxide and air pollutants). I found this example of social factors determining the health outcome of community members fascinatinng and deeply troubling. It is important to remember, as we care for patients and consider health promotion strategy, all factors that may contribute or cause an individaul's condition.

I think that one of the greatest failings of the science community is poor communication with the greater public. While it is not the direct responsibility of scientists who research and conduct studies, there ought to be some role that bridges the gap between science discoveries and the general public. It is impossible to expect that the general public who are directly affected by the science community to understand their discoveries in-full. This gap in communication inevitably leads to distrust and the spread of misinformation. I wonder what institutions, policies, commucication efforts, etc. could be set in place that would reestablish trust amongst the general public in the science community, espeically before the next pandemic.