Measuring Health - how healthy are you?

If you can't measure it. you can't manage it", said management guru Peter F. Drucker.

How do you measure your personal health?  Can we measure health?  Is 'health' the opposite of 'illness'.  Do we measure illness?  These simple questions force us to think seriously about the definitions of health, and illness.

Warning.  If you try GOOGLE, your public library, your doctor to find a 'health measurement' - you will be seriously challenged.  The word 'health' is generally used to mean 'illness'. Health Care is not about health - it is about illness. "Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires", by Ian McDowell is not, as the title suggest - about measuring health.  It is about measuring illness and deficiencies.
For example it discusses the Health Utilities Index which measures the health of our sensory systems as:
"SENSATION:
1. Able to see, hear, and speak normally for age.
2. Requires equipment to see or hear or speak.
3. Sees, hears, or speaks with limitations even with equipment.
4. Blind, deaf, or mute."
eg. If you can 'see, hear and speak normally for your age' - you are healthy. There is no measurement of how healthy you are.  Measurements of 'health' only arise when you are clearly 'deficient'. Health is not measured. Either you have it, or not.

Illness is defined by 'diagnosis'.  The result is binary.  Either you have disease x, or you do not. Doctors diagnose 'illness' and prescribe a treatment.  Some illnesses have progressions, from pre-diabetic, to type 2 diabetes is one example.  Pre-diabetes is also measured as a 'yes/no' answer.

Yes/no responses are not adequate measures of health.  We need a more sophisticated technique - or perhaps many sophisticated techniques to create an accurate measure of health.  We can start with the basic disciplines of health: nutrients, cells, organs, systems, physical health, mental health, social health and spiritual health. If we can measure health on each of these areas - the sum will provide an overall health measurement.

But search you may - you will not find a tool to measure your health status in any one of these areas - much less all 8 of them.

How can you accurately measure your nutrient health?  Nutrient health is made up of hundreds of components - the essential nutrients.  Our medical establishment does not agree on the two key factors required to measure nutrient health:

1. What nutrients are essential to health? eg. What nutrients do we need to measure to determine nutrient health.
2. What level of nutrient is 'optimal' for optimal health?  Our medical systems generally define how much of each nutrient is 'essential to avoid illness in most people', and how much is 'so much it may result in risk of illness'.  But between those two numbers - often very far apart - there is no scientific information that recommends 'optimal' levels of nutrients.

If we try to measure cellular health... hmm. Do we need surgery? What tools does our medical system have to measure cellular health - of a relatively healthy subject? Are the blood cells healthy? The skin cells?  The bone cells?  etc. How do we know how healthy they are - on a scale of 0 to 100 percent, for example.

When we can measure health, some serious questions might be easily answered.  Do mercury fillings improve or degrade your health?  Your cellular health? Your organ health? Does removing mercury fillings improve your health in the short term?  The long term?

Can we measure individual (or personal) health to any useful level of accuracy?

How can we manage our own personal health if we cannot measure health?

If we are to strive for Personal Health Freedom - we need to explore the measurement of health.

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

Driving with a Healthy Attitude

Last year I attended a concert by a visiting musician.  I do that a lot....

Before the performance, she told us about her drive across the city, and how she was 'cut off' three or four times.

My brain went fuzzy.  I thought,"When was the last time I was cut off?"  I couldn't remember.  I drive a lot. More than most people.  But I hardly ever get 'cut off'.  So what's up with that? It took some thinking, and I started to pay attention to how I drive.  Over time, the answer came to me.

There are several reasons why I never get 'cut off' when I'm driving.

First, if someone is ahead of me - even in a different lane, I pay attention.  If they want to move in front of me, even if they don't signal, I generally detect it in advance - and give them room.  It is almost impossible for someone to 'cut me off' because of my driving attitude.  And afterwards, I usually find they don't even want to be in front of me - they want to change lanes so they can make a turn, disappearing from my path.

I remember driving in Toronto, with an older passenger who said "I never signal lane changes. Why should I signal my lane changes."  I pointed to the car in front of me, clearly (to me) planning a lane change. I backed off - and the driver zipped in front.  "There," I replied  "he didn't signal - so I'm driving for him as well".

Another reason I don't get cut off has to do with my high tolerance for mistakes by other drivers.  To be honest, sometimes I get frustrated, but generally, if a driver is lost, in a hurry, not paying attention, a new driver, an elderly person who maybe doesn't see very well, a visitor from out of province, or just plain idiotic and they do manage to 'surprise' me by pulling in front - I don't hold a grudge.  I might honk my horn, but generally not.  And in a few minutes - I forget about it.

So, if you cut me off today, I won't remember, or care, five minutes later. I certainly don't keep a list of people who cut me off, nor a count.

Next time you are cut off (or in a car where the driver was cut off) ask these simple questions:

1. Were you caught by surprise?  If you were caught by surprise, maybe you were not "cut off", maybe you were just not paying attention? Honk your horn at yourself. (sometimes I wish we had different horn sounds - so I could have one honk for DANGER, another for 'sorry....').

2. Did you see it coming, and speed up "try to not let the other driver in"? You were not "cut off", you were driving like an idiot.  Shame on you.  Honk your sorry... horn.

3. Were you speeding?  If you were speeding, are you saying: "I'm a better driver than most, so I can choose to drive faster and still be safe" - so, if you can drive faster and be safe, then  no one can cut you off - because you anticipate and share the road better than the other drivers.

I believe it is not possible to be cut off if you are speeding.  Once you pass the speed limit, you accept responsibility for what happens in front of you.

so... ask yourself, is it possible to be 'cut off' if you are driving alert, safely and sharing the road?  Maybe, but unlikely.

The secret to ensure we are never "cut off" when driving, is simple: change our attitude. Share the road.

Make this a personal health choice. Choose to be a healthy driver.

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

I get knocked down, but I get up again

I get knocked down, but I get up again.

I get knocked down, but I get up again.

(song: Tubthumpinb by CHUMBAWAMBA)

Is this how health works?  We are up.  Then we get knocked down.  Then we get up again. This happens over and over and over.  At some point, we get knocked down so hard that we cannot get up again - or we realize we need help.  So we visit a doctor.  The doctor prescribes some medicines, or surgery, or other intervention - and we get up again, but maybe not so tall.  Until we get knocked down and we can't get up again. And we die.

Sometimes we view our health status as 'ok', or 'sick'. eg. as 'Knocked down' or 'up again'.  This is a very simplistic and weak paradigm. 

How should we view health?  

Our health is a status measurement - a summary of many status measurements. How healthy are we on a scale of 0 to 10.  Dead, to perfectly healthy.  How healthy are our cells?  How healthy are our tissues, our organs, our bodily systems, our body, our mind, our communities and our spirit?  The sum, or summary, of these health status measurements is a powerful measure of our health.  We are not 'knocked down or up again'.  We are lying down, or kneeling, or crawling, or standing up, or walking or running.  Or we can walk, but not run.  Or we can run, but not very fast... A continuum of measurements provides a more useful health status. 

Health is also a balance measurement - the sum or summary of many balance measurements. Are our nutrients in balance - not to little, not too much.  Are our stresses in balance - not too little, not too much.  Our parasites are in balance, not to little, not too much. And so on. 

If a 60 year old goes to the doctor for his annual physical, and the doctor says "You're as healthy as a 50 year old person".  What does it mean? Does it mean anything? And next month, if the 60 year old is diagnosed with terminal cancer - does it mean he's as healthy as a 50 year old with terminal cancer? 

How does this happen?  It does happen.  Why is our current health system not able to measure health status, complete health status - and give a useful answer? 

The answer is very complex and very simple. 

There are 9 dimensions of health. Nutrients, cells, tissues, organs, systems, body, mind, community and spirit.  How do we measure your nutrient health?  We don't, unless you are ill. Do we have an established method for measuring nutrient health of people.  No. How do we measure the health of your cells?  We don't, unless you are ill.  Do we have an established method for measuring the health of your tissues?  No.  And so on. 

Each of these 9 dimensions contains a list of components.  There are over 100 different nutrients essential to the maintenance of our health. Our medical system does not provide a definitive list, much less a definitive guideline for health.  Our body consists of over one hundred different types of cells.  Is it possible to measure the health status of each of them?  Is it necessary to determine health status completely?  Our bodies are comprised of many organs, systems and tissues.  How do we effectively measure the health status of each and all of them? 

There are 6 factors that can lead to illness, by deficiency or excess.  They are genetics, nutrients, parasites, toxins, stress and growth.  How do we measure the status of these health factors?  We don't bother, unless you are ill.  Do we have an established method for measuring deficiencies or excesses of nutrients?  Of stress?  Of growth?  No. Not unless you are sick to the point of a diagnosis. 

Of the over 100 essential nutrients, are you suffering from a deficiency or an excess of 1, or 10, of 30? Do you have sufficient healthy bacteria to maintain your health?  But not an excess, and not an excess of unhealthy bacteria?  Are you under-stressed?  Or overstressed? How can we tell the difference?  Are the symptoms similar? Are you lacking stress in one area, but suffering from too much stress in another?

I believe that, if we shift our paradigm from 'I get knocked down, but I get up again', to 'In some ways I am very healthy and in others, not so healthy - I'm working to learn about and improve in those areas', we will be closer to understanding and improving our health - and our health systems.  

What do we need to accomplish this?  We need to develop effective paradigms and tools to measure health status and illness status - far below the threshold of 'sickness' (I get knocked down).  We need more powerful tools than simple diagnostics that produce a 'yes/no' answer. 

We need to provide individuals with information about their health status, based on the measurements from these tools and technologies.  

We need to give individuals the responsibility and the power to take health actions on their own behalf.   To give them personal health information - and Personal Health Freedom.  

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

The Food Myth - Part 2

I have received a number of positive comments about my recent blog The Food Myth. Some people were confused about my message. Thanks very much for the comments - I view all comments as positive. They help us to understand each other, and ourselves.  This post is a clarification of my position with regards to The Food Myth.

Myth: The best way to meet your nutritional needs is through a healthy diet.  eg, Eat the right foods.

Fact: Eating the right foods is an excellent start to meeting your nutritional needs.  However, it is insufficient and eating the wrong foods can be dangerous. 

First let's be clear what I mean by food.  I mean foods in their natural state - raw or cooked.  Non-supplemented foods. Many of the foods we buy in the store are 'supplemented foods', or invented foods. Even the basics like bread and meat, cheese and wine, often have additives that are nutritional, or perhaps not.

I love Gerry's comment that when she was pregnant in Japan - she was advised to eat small amounts of 30 different types of food every day.  This advice is very good.  We don't know for certain which foods are essential to a healthy baby, so we  try to eat many different foods to ensure all the needs are met. This is much healthier than binging on a single food - which probably only contains a small number of the essential ingredients to help a baby grow. The same is true for us as adults.  Every day we grow 'new cells', and they need nutrition.  But I'd guess that many North Americans don't eat 30 different foods in a week.

Fact: Eating supplemented foods is an excellent second step to meeting your nutritional needs.  However, it is insufficient, and sometimes dangerous. 

It is unfortunate that we do not have a good word to name 'supplemented foods'.  We have a very fuzzy distinction between foods and supplements, made worse by the huge quantities of supplemented foods that are now on the market. We need a word for supplemented foods, to distinguish foods, from supplemented foods, and from supplements. I propose the word 'sfood' for supplemented food, and 'sfoods' for supplemented foods.

Salt is supplemented with iodine, because most people cannot get enough iodine in the food they eat. Supplementing table salt with iodine improves the health status of most people in the general population. On the other hand, table salt you buy today is not just supplemented with iodine - it is also contains non-food products to keep it flowing smoothly.

If you buy rock salt, or sea salt, it is not normally supplemented with iodine. Table salt is supplemented, therefore it is a 'sfood'.

or is it?

According to many people, Mercola, for example, table salt does not contain 'food salt'. It contains a highly processed form of sodium chloride, and iodine supplement and some chemicals to help if flow freely.  The table salt in my store also contains sugar.  Mercola says that table salt is very unhealthy and upsets your normal fluid balances.

So, according to Mercola, and others, table salt is not a food, and not a sfood.  This makes it is a supplement.  Eg. it is a non-food, containing a supplement that is essential to your health.  Supplements normally have 'additives' in the package.  As does the iodine supplement that is sold as 'table salt'.

Politicians, health professionals and product manufacturers can argue for decades about table salt.  Is it a food?  A sfood?  A supplement. Who is right?  The only important decision is your Personal Health Freedom decision.  You can decide for yourself and act on your decision - as long as sea salt and rock salt are available as alternative purchases. But, when you buy a processed food product containing salt, in most cases, you don't know what kind of salt it contains.  So, if you want to avoid table salt, you must take severe actions.

There are many valuable sfoods.  Breakfast cereals, breads, margarines and many other foods are supplemented with essential nutrients - changing them from foods, to sfoods.

Fact: Meeting your nutritional needs by choosing the right supplements is an excellent first step to optimizing your health status.  


There is a huge difference between 'meeting your nutritional needs' and 'optimizing your health status'.  Vitamin and mineral guidelines are generally designed to prevent illness.  To quote the Nutrition Information Resource Centre "Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) – the average dietary intake level of a nutrient that prevents a deficiency in 98% of a population."  There is a huge difference between preventing a deficiency, and optimizing your health.  If you just 'meet your nutritional needs', you may suffer many deficiency related illnesses that are just 'below the level of diagnosis'.  And few people have diets that regularly meet the RDA recommendations.

"Optimizing your health status" is the primary goal of Personal Health Freedom.

'Meeting your nutritional needs' is similar to getting 50 percent on an exam.  A pass mark. Sufficient - but hardly a worthwhile goal.  We can easily reach 70 percent, 80 percent or higher with some research, study and effort.

We need to ensure that the food myth is busted - to free ourselves, to move our health forward, personally, and as families, communities and societies.

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

Primary Causes of Illness

This post was written in 2010.  In 2018, I published the book: A Calculus of Curing, which presents a more thorough and comprehensive view of causes of illness.  You can read about the book by clicking this link. 

The information presented in this blog post has been rewritten and can be seen here. This post contains a simplified version.

Our current 'health system' tends to focus on symptoms and treatments. Disease is diagnosed through symptoms.  And we often treat the symptoms instead of the illness ignoring the cause.  Often we hear someone raising money to find 'the cure' for cancer --why?  Is it because we have given up trying to find the causes.  Is cancer is a monster of so many different causes - and our medical and health systems cannot deal with this reality.  Or is it simply that you can 'sell' a cure, or sell the search for a cure - but you cannot sell a 'cause'.   I believe that a more thorough study of disease causes, in general and in specific cases, will improve our health status.

Are diseases, illnesses and infirmities defined by their symptoms?  Or their causes?  Answering this question is not as simple as you might guess.  However, we can clearly define and categorize the basic causes of disease and infirmity.  Is it a disease, an illness, an infirmity?  The words have similar, overlapping meanings.  I will use the word 'illness' from this point forward.

There are six basic causes of illness. They are: genetics, nutrients, parasites, toxins, stress and growth.  In each case, the illness can be tracked to a deficiency, or a surplus of some health factor.  In this simple chart, you can visualize the scale for each of the six basic causes of illness as simple deviations from a healthy status.

Genetics - we are each conceived with a specific genetic code. In some cases, this genetic code is faulty, leading to illness, sometimes very quickly, and sometimes after a very long time.

Genetic factors can be deficient - where the person does not have genes to avoid an illness, or healthy, or excessive - where the genetic factors have a negative effect on the person's health.

Nutrients are a key to health, but also a key to illness.  Many essential nutrients have corresponding deficiency illnesses.  Scurvy is a severe deficiency of Vitamin C.  A healthy intake of nutrients leads to healthy cells and a healthy body.  Excesses of essential nutrients can cause illness. Nutrients can clearly be seen as deficient, healthy or excessive depending on the amount consumed. The most challenging question about nutrients is 'what is optimal' at this point in my life, and my health. Illness caused by nutrient deficiencies or excess can be easily diagnosed if they occur in the short term.  Illness caused by long term nutrient deficiencies or excesses are more difficult to understand.

Toxins are often cited as causes of illness.  As with other health factors - we can demonstrate that many toxins can be deficient, leading to unhealthy states - or sufficient for health and health enhancement, to excessive, leading to health problems. As we create new chemicals daily - it is very difficult to track which might be fast, or slow toxins.  Note: I have taken care to not label nutritional excess as toxicity - to clearly differentiate between nutrients and toxins.  Nutrients are foods that we need to live a normal healthy life.  Toxins are not.  However, many foods contain toxins - plants and animals develop toxins to defend themselves from predators. And many plants create or use chemicals that are toxic to people.


Parasites, bacteria, viruses, etc -are  one of the most commonly cited causes of illness. However, even with parasites, it is important to remember that you can suffer from a parasite deficiency. Your body  may be blessed with healthy bacteria. Some parasites can cause illness. Like genetic and nutritional factors, parasites can be deficient, healthy or excessive.


Growth and healing systems are another potential cause of illness. Our bodies are well adapted to dealing with health issues.  We have systems that protect us and heal us when any of the above five factors create health issues. We have growth and healing systems, and an immune system.  But sometimes these complex systems go off the rails. Our bodies require healthy immune systems and healing systems to deal with the stress of day to day living.  If these systems are deficient, as they often are elderly people, illness can creep in. Alternatively, healing and growth can also become excessive, running amok, leading to  a specialized set of infirmity or illness, ranging from allergies to tumors.

Growth and healing systems can cause illness when they are out of balance.  Like each of the others, these factors can be deficient, sufficient or excessive.

Stress is the final potential cause of illness. Too little stress, specifically in the forms of physical and mental exercise - can turn our muscles and brains to mush.  A healthy amount of stress is vital.  But excessive stress can lead to physical or mental illness and even to broken bones. Technically, we could view most illness causes as 'stress'.  Nutrient deficiency, toxin excess, etc.  However, for the purpose of categorizing causes of illness we need to limit stress to stresses not covered by other categories.  Things like physical, or mental 'whacks on the side of the head'.

That's it.  Six causes of illness.  When we speak about health and illness, we can clearly see how they are linked together. Healthy is the balance point for each of the factors.  Go too low, or too high - and you throw your body out of balance, and illness is the result.  This is one important way of looking at, and classifying all illness.

Note: the sequence has been updated from the original post to create a hierarchy that can be aligned with the hierarchy of health. It can also be noticed that each of the elements in the hierarchy of health can be a source of illness when they are out of balance.

We know it's not that simple.  Many illnesses are caused by secondary or tertiary health issues, or combinations of health issues. However, it is important to understand the primary causes of illness as a foundation to the study of health, and also to effectively study preventatives.

You may be suffering from several different deficiencies and excesses, from mild to severe.  The health issue then becomes - which is most important - and what actions should be taken today, this week, this month?

Those decisions are personal.  Actions to prevent illness and to deal with illness are also personal.  It's  about Personal Health Freedom.

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

The Food Myth

The best way to meet your nutritional needs is through a healthy diet.  eg, Eat the right foods.

Is a myth.  It is not a valid scientific hypothesis. It cannot be tested by the scientific method.  The truth is, we don't know what is the best way to meet our nutritional needs.  The truth is, we do not have more than the faintest idea what our needs are for optimal nutrition.

This particular myth is often presented as 'fact' at the end of a series of 'scientific studies', giving it credence as if it was the result of a scientific study.  This only encourages sloppy thinking.

You can see many articles and reports that present evidence from scientific studies on the effects of vitamins on disease, and then leap to the unscientific conclusion, the mother-false-hood statement, "The best way to meet your nutritional needs is through food."

Why is this statement a myth?  Why is if 'false'?  First of all, it is a myth because, simply, it cannot be proven.  There is no scientific test that can be designed to prove that "your best source of nutrition is through food (where food does not include nutritional supplements)".  The only scientific tests completed to date have proven the opposite.

Scientific tests have shown that adults who consume calcium supplements - are healthier than those who try to meet their calcium needs through their diet.

Scientific test have shown that, for most people in the northern hemisphere - it is better to meet your Vitamin D needs through supplements than through diet. If you don't get enough sun, you can try eating a lot of fish, liver, etc. But because this is difficult, and possibly dangerous, many foods are 'supplemented' with Vitamin D, including milk, yogurt, margarine and breakfast cereals.

This bring us to one of the other issues with the statement: "The best way to meet your nutritional needs is through a healthy diet."  What is food?  What does a healthy diet consist of?  Is it better to meet your nutritional needs through 'supplemented foods' where you have no control over the amount of supplement - and possibly no knowledge of the supplement - or through personal supplement decisions - where you make the choices?  Or both? .

The second reason it is a myth, is that it is a 'black swan statement'.   There was once a theory that there were 'no black swans'.  And this theory held true for many years - until black swans were discovered in Australia.  And the theory was dead. The Food Myth is, like the Black Swan Theory, an 'all or nothing' thinking error.  As a result, a single contrary report nullifies the myth.  The food myth has been proven wrong many times.  There are many specific, well known examples where (non-supplemented) food is NOT the best way to meet your nutritional needs. Salt is supplemented with iodine - because most people cannot meet their iodine requirements through non-supplemented food.

Next time someone hands you the myth - 'the best way to meet your nutritional needs is through a healthy diet', ask them simply:

"Interesting, what scientific studies have proven this to be true?"  But don't hold your breath waiting for an answer - one of your nutritional needs is oxygen.

Why is this important to Personal Health Freedom?  We believe it is important for every person to make their own health choices, and to be responsible for those choices.  We also believe it is important to study, not to discount, the value of nutritional supplements to improve health.

The Food Myth discourages personal actions and personal decisions - while pretending to give you 'responsibility or perhaps simply 'blame' for your dietary choices.

Personal Health Freedom wants you to have the freedom to make personal decisions about your health, including both your diet and your supplements, as well as the freedom to act on those decisions.

See Part 2 of the Food Myth here
and the Reader's Digest version of the Food Myth here

ps. If you enjoy my posts, please share - and you might LIKE my facebook page. 

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

A Hierarchy of Health - Primary and Secondary Disciplines

Health Disciplines

NOTE: The concepts in this blog posting have been updated and the revised Hierarchy of Health - Primary and Secondary Disciplines, can be viewed here.

To define health, to understand health, to study health, we start with the primary elements of health and expand those to cover all aspects of health. Simple? Actually, it is not terribly complicated. A complete chart of the basic 'disciplines of health' can be found on the Personal Health Freedom website.

This chart begins with the basic components of health: nutrients, cells, tissues, organs, systems, body, mind, spirit and community. These basic components are arranged into a hierarchy, where each is dependent on the layers below. Each of these basic components has a well know 'field of study', which is identified on the chart, respectively as: nutrtion, cytology, histology, anatomy, systemic anatomy, physiology, cognitive physiology, spirtiual studies and community studies.

The secondary health components are created by combining primary health compnents - first with immediate neighbors, and then with farther components. The chart of secondary components begins, for example, with cellular nutrition, tissue nutrition, thru spiritual nutrition to community nutrition. Here we can see health studies that we intuitively 'knew about', but had no prior foundation to support or define. Note: this is the first published version of the chart - I do expect it to be improved with input from readers like you.

We can use the chart to analyze and make corrections and improvements in our basic understanding of health. What is the proper term for the study of cellular spirituality, for example? Is it valid to create a field of health to study the effects of improvements in individual spiritual health on the health of cells? Of course we may need to define and re-define 'spiritual health' as we proceed in this analysis.

This is the basic starting point for the study of health. It soon becomes very complex. The study of healthy nutrition, for example might start with a study of the foods, or nutritional compounds that are essential to good health. At present, we don't have a clear understanding of how many 'essential nutritional compounds' exist. A quick scan retreives answers ranging from 6 essential nutrients (water, carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins and minerals) to lists of over 100 essential nutrients - only some of which fit into the 6 basic nutrients initially defined.

Similarily, each of the primary components of health, can become a study of hundreds of individual components. The next layer, cellular health includes the study of over 200 different types of cells in the human body - but this number is limited to 'human cells'. As far as I know, there is no similar list of how many 'non-human cells' are essential or contribute to health. When you map nutrition to cells - a comprehensive study of cellular nutrition, would be a study of the nutritional needs of each of the cell types, human and non-human, to optimize your health although many are known to exist.

The word 'optimize' is key. Present nutritional standards (RDI - Reference Dietary Intake) are defined as 'sufficient to meet the health needs'. This measurement is far away from 'the appropriate amount to optimize your health'. Optimize health is also a double edged sword, that requires significant research and analysis. Some health actions may strengthen your health in one (or more) areas, and weaken it in other areas. And oc course too much of a good thing - is not good. Personal decisions are required for personal health optimization.

Our current studies of medicine tend to look at 'avoidance, or treatment, of disease and infirmity' as the goal. This goal is not appropriate to optimize health. In order to optimize health, the goal must be simply stated as 'to optimize health'. Optimal health is difficult to measure. What is the optimal level of cellular health for a 50 year old Polish male living in Canada? In fact, each of us is different, and eeach of use has our own unique optimal health status which changes as we grow - and then age.

To attain optimal health, we need more research into health, not illness. We need free access to information about health, freedom to take health decisions and actions on our own behalf.

Which leads us back to the primary goal of this blog - Personal Health Freedom. The best way to maintain optimal health, is thru the freedom to make our own decisions about our own health and health actions. Optimal health cannot be attained, it must be maintained through continual conscious unrestrained actions and decisions.http://personalhealthfreedom.com/PDFs/PersonalHealthFreedom-Disciplines.pdf

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

A Horse's Tail - Health Rights

Once upon a time, there was a poor farmer, who owned a horse. Unfortunately, over time, the farmer became more and more poor - and was unable to feed his horse. He became angry at his personal situation and began to beat the horse. After some time, the horse became thinner and thinner, welts and sore spots started to show on his flesh and his tail began to fall out.

A neighbors noticed the situation and reported it to the police. The police came and rescued the horse, and the farmer was charged with animal cruelty.

What has this got to do with Personal Health Freedom? An important lesson.

A horse has rights. A horse, or a cow, or a dog has a right to adequate food, and water. And a horse has a right to not be abused physically. The man was charged with violating these rights.

Yesterday, I read a "A Woman's Health Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" written by Dr. Carolyn DeMarco in her excellent book, "Take Charge of your Body". The list consisted of a number of rights and responsibilities, which at first glance I thought might be related to Personal Health Freedom.

Unfortunately, Dr DeMarco got the part about health rights very, very wrong. She lists 9 Rights, and 6 Responsibilities. Two of the proposed 'rights' are severely conditional, for example: "I have the right to choose the types of treatments I prefer from among the options offered to me by my doctor." This list of rights, like many similar lists, is a list of 'medical rights', not health rights. Medical rights apply when you are sick - and should be defined only after your health rights, which apply when you are well and when you are ill, are clearly articulated and understood.

A quick Google of Freedom vs Responsibilities shows many pages stating that you cannot separate Freedom, or Rights, from Responsibility.

Back to the horse. The horse has rights. But what are his responsibilities?

There are none - and none required. Natural 'rights' are not 'conditional on responsibilities', and are not linked to responsibilities. We all have natural rights. Like the horse's rights, our rights are not tied to any responsibilities.

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." - there are no conditionals in that sentence from the International Declaration of Human Rights.

The Canadian Bill of Rights goes a bit beyond 'natural rights' (I don't object to that, just want to make clear the difference). It says: "the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property". 'Enjoyment of property' is not a 'natural' right, it comes with some responsibilities. It is natural for enjoyment of property to come with responsibilities, because owning and enjoying a specific property may take that specific right away from other people.

The United States Declaration of Independence says "...unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". There are no responsibilities tied to these unalienable rights.

But what about 'responsibilities'? Back to the horse. Where do the responsibilities lie? The responsibilities lie on the person with power. The farmer, who owns the horse, is responsible, as part of that ownership, to provide food, water and protection from abuse. The horse is not responsible for anything. If the owner cannot provide for the horse, he can sell it. Or in some countries (or if it is a cow) he can slaughter it, and eat it. But as long as it as alive and 'his possession' - he is responsible to maintain its rights.

Responsibility comes from power. Not with rights. The doctor has responsibilities. The patient has rights. Does responsibility come with 'empowerment'? I think not, but that's another complicated discussion.

Be wary of anyone who says rights and responsibilities are bound together. They are not. Natural rights exist on their own, as a result of their intrinsic merit - and our intrinsic merit.

Responsibilities arise when someone, or some group, exercises power over others. This can happen in a family situation, a social situation, a work situation, a legal situation, a medical situation -- and many other situations.

When we exercise power over others - we have responsibilities.

When someone exercises power over us - we have rights.
... and rightfully so

What are our health rights?

The International Declaration of Human Rights should say: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of person, and the pursuit of health and happiness".

The United States Declaration of Independence should say: "...unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Health and Happiness"

The Canadian Bill of Right should say: the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person, and the pursuit of health and happiness

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: