ABSTRACT
The purpose of this book is twofold: first to contribute to a better understanding among lawmakers of the importance of a right to health; and second, to promote a greater awareness among health professionals of the role of law in health. The book has been structured to consist of three main chapters. Chapter 1 sets the conceptual stage. The chapter begins with an introduction to international human rights, focusing on the social and economic rights and particularly the right to health. An analysis of the role of the State follows. Chapter 2 consists of 29 national analyses, and represents the core of the work. In this chapter, national scholars analyze the constitution of their own countries. Each national analysis, to provide a useful comparison, is undertaken in a uniform format. This format includes critical background information on the nature and scope of the right to health, the concept of health, and the alternative views of State responsibility for health. Chapter 3, Summary and Analysis, describes the constitutional history and evolution of Hispanic América, Portuguese América, North América and the Caribbean including; legal traditions; forms and structures of government; principal characteristics of political constitutions; efficacy of constitutional norms; the concept of the right to health and a review of its international, constitutional, and legislative expressions
Subject(s)
Legislation as Topic , Right to Health , Latin AmericaABSTRACT
Considering the "first two" AIDS epidemics to be the spread of HIV infection and subsequent development of AIDS symptoms, then what has been termed the "Third epidemic" is the widespread economic, social, and cultural reaction to the disease. This reaction raises crucial social, humanitarian, and legal issues that threaten to seriously strain society's fundamental fabric of tolerance and understanding. This article describes various approaches and considerations ralating to those issues. Specifically, the article deals with the following four questions: (1) what is the best public health approach to people with HIV/AIDS and what rights should they have? (2) who should be given mandatory testing? (3) Who has a right to know if someone has HIV/AIDS, and should anyone be warned? and (4) how can society be protected aginst people who irresponsibly, perhaps even deliberately, set out to infect others? In essence, the best available answer regarding the rights and treatment of HIV/AIDS patients is that they should be allowed to live normal lives to the extent their health permits. Discrimination and stigmatization will hurt rather than help the general public as well as those infected-because it will prevent those who are or think that may be infected from coming forward for testing and couseling. As to who should be subjected to mandatory testing, it appears that the spread of HIV and AIDS cannot