ABSTRACT
La pandemia del Coronavirus puso nuevamente en el centro de las agendas políticas a lo sanitario. No obstante, las Dimensiones Internacionales de la Salud y su expresión cotidiana en los ámbitos subnacionales latinoamericanos se encuentran invisibilizadas (Róvere, 1992). Este trabajo primero se propone enmarcar en términos históricos a la Salud Internacional y al Complejo Médico Industrial y Financiero (Herández, 2019: Iriart, 2008). En segundo lugar, confrontar las concepciones de salud internacional frente a la de salud global, al tiempo que describir los conceptos de filantrocapitalismo, territorio, Salud como Asunto Internacional y las Dimensiones Internacionales de la Salud (Róvere, 1992). Seguidamente, se analizarán publicaciones académicas con diferentes perspectivas sobre las barreras de acceso a la salud, enunciando las principales características que las sustentan. Finalmente se buscará problematizar y visibilizar las categorías antes expuestas a nivel local-territorial, indagando sobre las barreras de acceso que de ellas derivan.
Subject(s)
Internationality , Health Services Accessibility , Right to Health/standards , International CooperationSubject(s)
Adolescent Health , Digital Technology/standards , Human Rights/standards , Internet , Right to Health/standards , Adolescent , Child , Humans , Young AdultABSTRACT
Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides for the right to health. Two questions are considered in this article. Does this right entail a more specific right to life-saving emergency treatment? And if so, should the latter right become justiciable in the domestic courts? Two propositions will be made in this article. First, the right to life-saving emergency treatment is a necessary component of the right to health. Second, the conventional arguments against the justiciability of socio-economic rights do not apply to the right to life-saving emergency treatment. Such a right should be justiciable at the domestic level.
Subject(s)
Emergency Treatment , Life Support Care , Right to Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Right to Health/standards , Health Care Rationing/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Care Rationing/standards , International Cooperation , Socioeconomic Factors , United Kingdom , United Nations/legislation & jurisprudenceSubject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Government Regulation , Pandemics/legislation & jurisprudence , Pneumonia, Viral , Right to Health , Social Responsibility , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Empowerment , Federal Government , Humans , Leadership , Needs Assessment , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , Right to Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Right to Health/standards , SARS-CoV-2 , United KingdomABSTRACT
In developed countries that protect core aspects of the fundamental human right to the highest attainable standard of health, how does that right intersect with intellectual property rights? Here, the human rights implication of providing access to all cancer drugs recommended by experts in a developed country is considered in the context of conflict between the incentive to invent and the rights of others to access medicines. Effective incentives to innovate in developed countries can lead to global improvements in access to medicine if the intellectual property system is calibrated to permit this. This depends partly on the usefulness of compulsory licensing and alternative mechanisms facilitating global access to drugs. This review considers tensions between fundamental rights to access essential medicines and rights of the inventor and investors, including the pharmaceutical industry.
Subject(s)
Drug Industry/standards , Human Rights/standards , Pharmaceutical Preparations/standards , Right to Health/standards , Developing Countries , Humans , Intellectual Property , Inventors/standards , Licensure/standards , Patents as TopicABSTRACT
Human rights discourse on the rights of transgender people has to a large extent focused on access to correction of legal gender and medical preconditions for this change. Jurisdictions across the world are now beginning to free legal gender recognition from medical interventions and examinations. State bodies have, however, done little to realise the rights of transgender people to adequate healthcare. A key issue is whether international law obliges states to ensure access to trans-specific healthcare. This article examines the right to healthcare appropriate to transgender persons' needs. Drawing on in-depth interviews with transgender people living in Norway, it investigates how individuals explain their needs for trans-specific healthcare. It shows that Norwegian healthcare practice uses the diagnosis of 'transsexualism' to determine a person's needs for trans-specific healthcare and as such excludes many from receiving the healthcare they need. The article analyses whether trans-specific healthcare falls within the ambit of the right to health under Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the right to necessary healthcare under the Norwegian Patients' Rights Act. It concludes that the Norwegian authorities are obliged to provide equal access to adequate trans-specific healthcare to those who need it.
