[Pwd] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [WSIS-CT] almost final version 4.3 of WSIS CS statement

[zara]

Dear Elizabeth,

Thank you for this very informative and helpful message, which I believe brings important information in better understanding some underlying issues with regards to this question.

First, I agree that we need to be as clear and perhaps specific as we can to ensure implementation and that was one of the motivations behind my suggesting we include a definition.  Of course, not being specific enough will leave things open to too much interpretation and being too specific will risk excluding certain needs or realities so there is a fine line.

I also agree that questions regarding spiritual, and for that matter vocational, well-being are not necessarily mainstream and may be more difficult to target in terms of government recognition, initiatives and/or funding as well as throwing in a "whole host of problematic and political issues".  But then when did those kinds of considerations stop CS groups from straying from what was recognized by government funding programs when alternatives were valid and supported ?  I understand that this is not the central issue for all and I am not an expert on spiritual and vocational well-being, but it is quite clearly important to members of this caucus and therefore, these concerns need to be considered.

Furthermore, as to including "physical and mental" aspects of health in the proposed definition, it is of course very acceptable and I apologize in forgetting to include them as I felt that "biological" and "emotional" were the equivalent terms suggested by Ms. Caras.  If this is not clear, and clearly it is not, then by all means, we should include them.

Also, if paragraphs are taken out of context, this might indeed be problematic but that is often what people do and there is not much we can do about that.  I understand motivations behind what you are proposing for this and am hard pressed at this time to offer a term that would satisfy everyone.  Unfortunately, this would result in certain aspects of what some regard as a wide definition of the concept of health to be excluded, should things be taken out of context.

I appreciate everyone's contributions to this discussion and hope the drafting group will take these issues into consideration.

Best regards,


Catherine


--
Catherine Roy, consultante

www.catherine-roy.net
514.525.9490




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elizabeth Carll, PhD [mailto:ecarll at optonline.net]
> Sent: December 18, 2005 8:34 PM
> To: zara
> Cc: Pwd at wsis-cs.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org; 'WSIS-CT'; wsishealth-and-
> ict at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Pwd] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [WSIS-CT] almost final version
> 4.3 of WSIS CS statement
> 
> Dear Catherine,
> 
> I believe the question you pose has been raised before and perhaps you did
> not see the discussion. I will further clarify.   The recognition of the
> importance of addressing "mental health" needs and labeling it using clear
> language which is tied directly to how governments decide on funding is
> essential.  To my knowledge there is no funding for access to emotional
> and spiritual services by governments.  Furthermore in
> many cultures spiritual is viewed as,  and often translates into,
> religious
> terms which brings with it a whole host of problematic and political
> issues.
> 
> In addition, the reference to physical and mental health was included in
> each of the health paragraphs in order that each can serve as a stand
> alone
> paragraph should one of the points be picked up by the media or other
> organizations and therefore prevent misinterpretation, when taken out of
> context.  Being as explicit as possible when drafting documents will
> insure the best chances for appropriate implementation.
> 
> If it is agreed that health can be defined in the first section of the
> health section to include mental health (although I did not see that word
> in your definition, as that is the term that is used for allocation of
> resources and funding by governments), then what is the problem with
> including the words physical and mental health in the other sections?
> 
> Physical and mental health is the language in the original CS Declaration.
> The current document is focused on implementation (or lack thereof) of the
> issues.  Therefore using similar language would be logical and consistent.
> It would also be consistent with other UN documents.
> 
> The Health and ICT WG would likely have no problem with adding a broad
> definition in the beginning of the health section which also included
> physical and mental health among the additional descriptors you mentioned,
> however, with regard to the specific issues in each of the paragraphs, it
> is essential that physical and mental health be retained.
> 
> It is also unclear how one would implement spiritual health and expect
> governments to allocate resources.  Therefore, it is even more important
> to use the specific terminology of physical and mental health in each of
> the paragraphs that follow.  Specificity is the key to successful
> implementation.
> 
> Elizabeth
> 
> Dr. Elizabeth Carll
> Health and ICT Working Group
> International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies;
> Communications Coordination Committee for the UN;
> UN NGO Committee on Mental Health
>