Zika, public health, and the distraction of abortion.

This paper suggests that the focus on abortion legalization in the aftermath of the Zika outbreak is distracting for policy and lawmakers from what needs to be done to address the outbreak effectively. Meeting basic health needs (i.e. preventive measures), together with research and development conducive to a vaccine or treatment for the Zika virus should be priorities.

The Idea of Patents vs. the Idea of University.

It is generally accepted that patents are a driving force for innovation through research and development. But the university's involvement in patenting is problematic as well. In particular, it is in tension with the idea of a university itself. If patents entail a restriction on the accessibility of the scientific knowledge that has been patented, and if the main purpose of universities is to produce and disseminate knowledge to the public, then, there is a tension: when universities patent their research innovations, they are making the scientific knowledge they produce less accessible to the public. The paper argues that university patenting contradicts the very idea of a university as an institution whose mission is fundamentally to disseminate the knowledge it produces to the public. The practice of university patenting involves an un-academic attitude thus: by inciting an attitude towards knowledge that is not consistent with the proper attitudes and goals of a university, university patenting hurts university's integrity.

Health as a basic human need: would this be enough?

Although the value of health is universally agreed upon, its definition is not. Both the WHO and the UN define health in terms of well-being. They advocate a globally shared responsibility that all of us - states, international organizations, pharmaceutical corporations, civil society, and individuals - bear for the health (that is, the well-being) of the world's population. In this paper I argue that this current well-being conception of health is troublesome. Its problem resides precisely in the fact that the well-being conception of health, as an all-encompassing label, does not properly distinguish between the different realities of health and the different demands of justice, which arise in each case. In addressing responsibilities related to the right to health, we need to work with a more differentiated vocabulary, which can account for these different realities. A crucial distinction to bear in mind, for the purposes of moral deliberation and the crafting of political and legal institutions, is the difference between basic and non-basic health needs. This distinction is crucial because we have presumably more stringent obligations and rights in relation to human needs that are basic, as they justify stronger moral claims, than those grounded on non-basic human needs. It is important to keep this moral distinction in mind because many of the world's problems regarding the right to health relate to basic health needs. By conflating these needs with less essential ones, we risk confusing different types of moral claims and weakening the overall case for establishing duties regarding the right to health. There is, therefore, a practical need to reevaluate the current normative conception of health so that it distinguishes, within the broad scope of well-being, between what is basic and what is not. My aim here is to shed light onto this distinction and to show the need for this differentiation. I do so, first, by providing, on the basis of David Miller's concept of basic needs, an account of basic health needs and, secondly, by mounting a defense of the basic needs approach to the right to health, arguing against James Griffin who opposes the basic needs approach.