Well being and physical difficulties - Essay Example

?Introduction The term wellbeing is synonymous to a of being healthy. World Health Organization (WHO, defines health as a “condition of complete mental, physical and social wellbeing and not just the lack of disease or disability”. In context to this definition, wellbeing is associated with leading a good life. However, what constitutes to good life remains a debatable issue that researchers have interrogated for many years without a conclusive finding. Andrews and Withey (1976) argued that any factor that undermines the health of people affects the quality of life adversely. This paper examines the effects of physical difficulties on the wellbeing of people. Determinants of wellbeing and health A combination of several factors determines the health status of individual persons and the society. These factors include the environment and the conditions that people live in (WHO 2011). According to World Health Organization (2011), the environmental condition of our residential areas, genetic constitution, income status and the level of education play a crucial role in determining the state of our health. Other factors include the state of our relations with family and friends. All these health-determining factors are grouped into three categories, namely the physical environment, characteristics and behavior of an individual, in addition to the social and economic environment where people live in (WHO, 2011). In this regard, the state in which people live has a profound effect on their health status. Some of these factors are within the control of people involved while others are not. The level of income determines the ease at which people access necessities to enhance the quality of their lives. Therefore, it is apparent that people with higher income levels have better health compared to low-income earners. A study conducted by WHO (2011) established that the greater the economic disparity between the poorest and the richest people in the society, the wider the variation in their health status. High income is associated with access to better nutrition, housing, health and education, which are important necessities for wellbeing. Education is a crucial factor that determines health and wellbeing of people in any given society. According to WHO (2011), illiterate and lowly educated people have poor health than the highly educated persons. In addition, they have higher level of mental stress and diminished self-esteem than literate people do. The level of education determines how a person utilizes the environment for personal fulfillment and economic advancement. Because of the low level of education, such people have limited access to better opportunities with improved incomes. Besides securing better opportunities, education empowers people to make informed health decisions. These include maintaining high level of sanitation and leading a healthy lifestyle irrespective of their level of income and the immediate environment. Physical environment, which includes access to clean and safe water, unpolluted air, safe and clean housing in addition to secure environs enhances the quality and subsequent wellbeing of people (WHO, 2011). Equally important, employed people especially those in good control of their working conditions are happier that jobless persons. In addition, social support from family, friends and the larger community plays significant role in promoting personal wellbeing. People in close and supporting social relationships with families and friends lead healthier lives (Diener, 2000). However, different communities have diverse cultural practices that promote or undermine the health of its members. For instance, some communities in different parts of the world practice female circumcision a tradition associated with adverse effects on the reproductive health of women. In some communities, children born with physical disabilities are isolated and in some cases left to die (Suh, et al 1998). Therefore, establishing good social relationships does not necessarily enhance wellbeing of people, unless such relations are accompanied with health promoting practices. Genetic constitution of an individual is also an important factor in the determination of health and life expectancy of person (WHO, 2011). Majority of people in the global population are born with normal genetic constitution that promotes healthy physiological functioning in the body. However, a significant proportion of people inherit abnormal and lethal genes from their parents causing physiological impairments of various cells, tissues and systems in the body. A study carried by Diener (2000) established that children born with severe genetic diseases associated with disability were prone to developing psychiatric disorders and social adjustment challenges. In addition to genetic constitution, personal characteristics, behavior and coping strategies play a significant role in determination of health and wellbeing. Habits such as smoking, poor eating lifestyle, lack of physical exercises and ineffective methods of dealing with life’s challenges and stresses undermine health and the quality of life (WHO, 2011). Other factors that determine the quality of life include accessibility to medical services and gender. Provision of curative, preventive and health promotion services to individual and communities enhances the quality of life (Ralph, 2011). Concerning gender, certain diseases afflict a particular sexual category. For instance, cervical and breast cancer predominantly affect women and according to World Health Organization (2011), these ailments are some of the most life limiting infections to the global women population. Physical difficulties and wellbeing For a long time, physical difficulties have been associated with lack of capacity or ability to carry out activities that able-bodied person can undertake. As a result, majority of such people are marginalized and isolated from the normal population especially in societies that are ignorant or poorly informed about physical disabilities. However, when provided with relevant supportive infrastructure, physically disabled people have shown remarkable resilience and ability to carry on with tasks that are even challenging to able-bodied persons. According to Ralph (2011), the number of people with physical deformities is on an increasing trend because of improved medical care that has enhanced life expectancy of the affected persons. Ralph (2011) defines a person with physical disability as an “individual with orthopedic, brain, or other health injury that requires specialized medical attention. The physical condition should significantly interfere with the affected person’s ability to undertake routine activities. Physical difficulties do not necessarily restrict normal activities but can be accompanied with dietary restrictions and in some cases require the affected person use medical equipment to undertake normal activities (Ralph 2011). In most societies, physical disability is associated with poor health, low quality life and reduced happiness. Physical disabilities include a wide range of acquired and congenital deformities. People with congenital deformities are born with the condition or they develop the physical disability soon after birth. Acquired physical disabilities originate from injuries or diseases that occur in a normal developing person (Ralph, 2011). The nature of physical injury determines the impact and the affected person’s adjustment to the disability. Spinal injuries are one of the leading causes of acquired physical impairments in the United States and other developing countries (Diener, 2000). These injuries inhibit movement and coordination of muscles in the body. Congenital physical disabilities include muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy, and epilepsy among other deformities. The impairments affect the normal functioning of the body at varying degree depending on the extent and the nature of the disability. Some of these congenital physical disabilities such as muscular dystrophy are terminal illness that are not only physically painful but affect the mental health of the affected persons tremendously (Ralph, 2011). Currently, terminal illnesses have raised ethical and moral debate of euthanasia. Proponents of euthanasia argue that deliberate killing of a person affected with terminal disease eliminates the suffering and pain since the person would die anyway. Opponents of euthanasia argue that the process is equivalent to murdering an innocent person in addition to being against medical ethics (Suh, et al 1998). This ethical debate on euthanasia raises the question on whether physical difficulties undermine wellbeing or not. For many years, researchers have evaluated wellbeing on the criteria of pleasure, loving others, self-actualization as the standards of establishing happiness (Diener, 2000). However, this approach in not universally applicable because people have diverse needs, wants and pursuits in their lives. The most pragmatic approach of evaluating happiness is subjective wellbeing that considers individual opinions on what makes their lives worthwhile. Diener (2000) defines subjective wellbeing as “cognitive and affective evaluation of people’s lives”. According to Myers (1992), subjective wellbeing has direct relationship with pleasant feelings. When people experience abundant and pleasant emotions, their level of subjective wellbeing is high. People experience high level of subjective wellbeing when undertaking exciting and pleasurable activities rather than when in emotional and physical pain. In addition, abundant wellbeing is achieved when people are contented with their lives. The pursuit of wellbeing is increasingly gaining prominence in the current global population. Once people meet their basic material needs, they move towards attainment of self-happiness (Diener, 2000). The effect of physical disability on the wellbeing of an individual varies depending on various factors, mainly the nature of deformity and personality of the disabled person (Ralph 2011). Some form of physical disabilities especially terminal diseases that are accompanied with intense and prolonged pain are extremely distressing to the affected person. Such physical difficulties accompanied by multiple handicaps reduce the subjective wellbeing of the affected individual. However, Diener (2000) argues that human beings have the capacity to adapt to almost every life-changing event, including disability and lead happy lives. A study conducted by Ralph (2011) on people with irreversible spinal injuries showed negative subjective wellbeing in the first few weeks but after an average of eight weeks, positive emotions had surpassed negative feelings. The duration of adapting to a physical deformity depends on several factors including personality and the availability of support services to the affected person (Diener 2000). Generally, physically disabled people living in poor conditions have positive subjective wellbeing if adequate social support is provided to compensate for the material deprivation. However, their subjective wellbeing differs depending on how the society provides them with economic and other supportive services. According to Ralph (2011), physical disability is directly associated with reduced incomes for the affected persons. In developing and least developing economies where a large proportion of people are engaged in labor-intensive jobs to earn a living, physical difficulties presents a formidable challenge for such people to earn a decent living. This implies that the level of subjective wellbeing of physically challenged individuals in such poor countries is undermined not by the physical disability but failure to meet basic necessities. Moreover, lack of support services in developing countries makes it harder for physically challenged persons to adapt to new methods of earning a living. Ralph (2011) attributes low prevalence of physically challenged people in developing economies to low life expectancy that ultimately results from the lack of basic needs. Normally, people expect a direct relationship between material possessions in life and subjective wellbeing. However, negative subjective wellbeing has been observed in some people with abundant material possessions, while others with negative material possessions have positive wellbeing. These findings have been recorded in people without physical difficulties and those without. Diener (2000, p38) argues that all people irrespective of their physical condition strive on a “hedonic treadmill”. This implies that as people increase their material and other desired attainments, they no longer feel satisfied and their expectations raise further. This behavior has been observed in people with acquired physical difficulties whereby initially, they are unhappy with their condition but sooner they overcome and adapt to anew lifestyle. Similarly, a person’s temperament has profound influence on subjective wellbeing of the individual. Ralph (2011) argues that personality determines the adaptability of an individual towards the attainment of long-term subjective wellbeing. Andrews and Withey (1976, p83) note that “happiness and misery depend much on temperament as on material possessions”. Genetics play a major role in determining the temperament of an individual regardless of the physical condition. Myers (1992) established that mood, or character of an individual remains relatively constant throughout their lives irrespective of the events that happen from time to time. Although mood fluctuation occurs periodically, a high degree of stable behavior is observed over long-term duration. Conclusion Wellbeing and physical difficulties do not have a direct correlation in the long term. Physical difficulties affect the normal functioning of the body, causing short-term reduction in subjective wellbeing. However, the negative emotions associated with disability do not last long because people have adaptive mechanism that enables them overcome disability and reestablish their wellbeing. The rate at which people adapt to physical disability is determined by several factors, including temperament, availability of social and economic support in addition to the nature of disability. Therefore, physical disability does not necessarily undermine wellbeing, unless other factors that determine health of a person are withdrawn or negatively affected. References Andrews, F., and Withey, S. (1976). Social indicators of wellbeing. New York: Plenum Press. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective wellbeing: The science of happiness and a proposal for national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), pp34-43. Myers, D.(1992). The pursuit of happiness. New York: Morrow publishers. Ralph, K. (Ed). (2011). Enhancing the quality of life of people with physical disabilities: From theory to practice. London: Springer. Suh, et al (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cultures: Emotions versus norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74; pp480-495. World Health Organization (WHO). (2011). Health impact assessment: The determinants of health. Accessed on 25 August 2011, from http://www.who.int/hia/evidence/doh/en/index.html Read More