My question is motivated by two factors.
First, this citation from Wikipedia:
In the scientific and academic literature on the definition or categorization of mental disorders, one extreme argues that it is entirely a matter of value judgments (including of what is normal) while another proposes that it is or could be entirely objective and scientific (including by reference to statistical norms); other views argue that the concept refers to a "fuzzy prototype" that can never be precisely defined, or that the definition will always involve a mixture of scientific facts (e.g. that a natural or evolved function isn't working properly) and value judgments (e.g. that it is harmful or undesired).
The excerpt emphasizes the intrinsic fuzziness of the workings of the mind. And I can understand that there are many concepts that cannot be reliably studied using the scientific method and that there are also many concepts that are "opinion-based", i.e. tend to be judged as "normal" or "not normal" by the society. Thus, the consensus varies considerably across different regions and societies.
Second, reading this question, I find it disturbing that an established mental disorder can be simply voted off. Imagine a patient coming for therapy one day and hearing that they are cured (or, perhaps worse, that they are not suffering any more), not because the therapy and/or medication yielded results, but because an authority got together and the members came to an agreement that the patient's ailment simply isn't an ailment any longer.
So, while we have great difficulties defining and drawing lines about mental disorders, I'm asking is there any way to define a healthy mind. Think of it as a list of criteria, that would convince the patient from above, not that they don't suffer any more, but that they are healthy.