I thought the WHO definition was overly broad. By their definition, it seems to me an overwhelming percentage of the world's population would be considered mentally ill. And, while there may be some truth to this perspective, it seems to me, if nearly everyone is mentally ill, then in a sense no one is mentally ill. There just happen to be a few people who aren't afflicted... sort of like a group of Mensa members.

The treatments then involve governmental policy issues. And while one could certainly argue that most governmental policies could use some tweaking, the reality is that meaningful governmental policy change occurs slowly & does not typically address the needs of individuals. So while I certainly think this is laudable "pie-in-the-sky" stuff, the kind you typically see in mission statements, I don't think it's of much value on a practical level.

Dr. Grohol's article is, from my perspective, nice. It is certainly useful for individuals to take into account their mental health along with their physical health. But, to me, it's pretty much just stating the obvious. There's no new ground broken here. Still, perhaps it does come as a revelation to numbers of the readers of "Psychology Today".