Over time, the word was again Americanized to produce the spelling “gazuntite” – not a word you`ll ever find in the dictionary, but a common, phonetically dispropelled misspelling of the word “health” – a blessing often said but rarely written. Mental illness often leads to a denial of dignity and autonomy, including coercive treatment or institutionalization, and disregard for individual legal capacity to make decisions. Paradoxically, mental health in public health is still under-addressed, despite high levels of violence, poverty and social exclusion that contribute to poorer mental and physical health outcomes for people with mental health disorders. Current thinking about the importance of WHO and its recommendations is approaching deliberate spoofing. In discussions in the health sciences, WHO and its stated commitment to the fundamental human right to health are regularly used – incidentally and without reference to the law – as a binding basis for decisions and actions and within the framework of national laws. Although this interpretation only partially expresses the truth, it refers to an intradisciplinary vision (initially purely theoretical in relation to the health sciences, but ultimately with practical implications) of international organizations and fundamental human and civil rights. WHO`s importance lies not in its ability to enforce health standards at the national and international levels through the implementation of health systems, but in the political sphere. WHO is relevant in how it expresses dominant (or, more importantly, not yet widespread) beliefs about the importance of health, including its legal regulation, and the development of a process-based approach to health. WHO`s recommendations, including its Declaration of the Fundamental Human Right to Health, merely express abstract universal ideals and provide no basis for a fundamental human right to health. Human rights refer first and foremost to the moral rights from which moral claims may arise and which have a purely moral legal basis. The result is a universal claim to these rights, regardless of socio-cultural, historical, political, religious or other constellations and cultures.
The definition of human rights at this level implies that their validity is independent of law enforcement mechanisms. The application or application of the law or assumptions, based on the Declaration of a Fundamental Human Right to Health, requires that such a right be enshrined in law at the national level and that legal mechanisms be put in place to enable individuals to assert their rights. The responsibility for implementing this change lies with each country and in particular with the experts in their public health systems, otherwise the idea remains an idea and nothing more. And by 1963, the drinking portion had been virtually abandoned, with the Merriam Webster dictionary listing its definition as an interjection used to wish for good health, especially “for someone who sneezes.” For the first time, health was also “Americanized,” written with a small g. This implementation has not been adequately implemented by individual governments. Neither experts working in the health sector, for whom a fundamental national right to health is of great importance for the legal realization of health services, nor those who want or need to operate the health system, can invoke “binding law”. Foreign words are certainly common in the English language, and there is no shortage of borrowed German terms (think kindergarten, doppelgänger, schadenfreude, the list goes on…), so it is perhaps not surprising that the word health is still used today in the United States, especially in the Midwest, to bless someone when they sneeze. The creation of the World Health Organization (WHO) as a specialized agency of the UN not only defined the responsibilities of the organization itself, but also defined health as a fundamental human right that deserves legal protection .