Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 25 January 2020
- Published on: 25 January 2020Defining global health as public health everywhere else
While liking the idea, I find two main problems with the suggested definition of global health as "public health somewhere else": 1) it is too narrow and 2) it sounds dismissive. In "global health", the word "global" is inclusive and suggests a health agenda embracing all the communities of the rest of the world. This is lost in the definition. Then there is the dismissive sound of "somewhere else" ("You can join our club or go somewhere else", "This could be Paradise or it could be somewhere else", etc.). I may be thin-skinned, but disdaining to specify a location sounds to me like a slur. For these reasons, and for all the other good reasons offered in the original Commentary, I suggest amending the definition to "public health everywhere else". This follows the original in asserting "elseness", while being inclusive and positive.
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.