The Constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO) was adopted by the International Health Conference held in New York in 1946, signed by the representatives of 61 states, and entered into force in 1948.1

Within its Constitution, the WHO declared health to be ‘a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’,1 a definition that the international health agency staunchly stands by and ‘remains firmly committed to’ today.2

Since this declaration, however, the WHO’s conceptualisation of health has received substantial and repeated criticism;3–5 as such, the WHO’s definition of health has been largely thrown out. However, might there be a baby to retrieve from the bathwater?

Machteld Huber and colleagues, for example, decry the WHO’s definition of health as ‘no longer fit for purpose’, and point to the enormous rise in chronic disease prevalence since the definition was first coined, which would render a major proportion of the world’s population unhealthy despite them feeling entirely, or at least sufficiently, well.6 More recently, David Misselbrook also pronounced the WHO definition as ‘outdated’, recognising that ‘our definition of health will be linked to the thinking of our time, and it will have a sell by date’.7

Multiple attempts to improve the WHO’s definition of health have been …