His was clearly demonstrated by the recent outbreak of Ebola, which until it reached the U.S. With the constant coming and going of people, it should be no surprise that diseases can spread like wildfires. If we continue to think of global health as the health of individuals living in far off countries, affected by different health issues, not only will we deny others our eager cooperation, but we also will limit our own benefits from collaborative health work.ĭisease outbreak is no longer restricted to cities or even countries ATAG claims that in 2012 there were more than 3 billion airline passengers. This definition is key in shaping a holistic and ethical approach to health, here and abroad. They define global health as “health problems, issues and concerns that transcend national boundaries, and may best be addressed by cooperative actions… and the goal of improving health for all people by reducing avoidable disease, disabilities, and death.” Commitment to Global Health incorporates all the necessary facets.

While you cannot exactly look up global health in the dictionary, the definition that is given by the U.S. It shouldn’t be an us verses them, but an us with them. Which is why we need to reframe the topic of global health. How could we expect people to sacrifice time or resources that could be spent on keeping us healthy in order to keep others healthy? We couldn’t.

This thought process creates a dichotomy between “our health” and “their health.” The problem with this is that humans are naturally more concerned or invested in their well-being before others and especially before strangers. We often think of global health as the health of those in distant, foreign countries. Unfortunately, it seems as though the term has been misconstrued to something other than its meaning, and this confusion comes with potential dangers. SEATTLE - Global Health is a relatively new term, springing up with the rapid globalization of our now hyper-connected world.

Foreigner synonym