The Alchemy of Agency: Reflections on Supported Decision-Making, the Right to Health and Health Systems as Democratic Institutions

2021 ◽  
pp. 17-28
Author(s):  
Alicia Ely Yamin
2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Asa Ebba Cristina Laurell

Objectives: This article analyzes the content and outcome of ongoing health reforms in Latin America: Universal Health Coverage with Health Insurance, and the Universal and Public Health Systems. It aims to compare and contrast the conceptual framework and practice of each and verify their concrete results regarding the guarantee of the right to health and access to required services. It identifies a direct relationship between the development model and the type of reform. The neoclassical-neoliberal model has succeeded in converting health into a field of privatized profits, but has failed to guarantee the right to health and access to services, which has discredited the governments. The reform of the progressive governments has succeeded in expanding access to services and ensuring the right to health, but faces difficulties and tensions related to the permanence of a powerful, private, industrial-insurance medical complex and persistence of the ideologies about medicalized 'good medicine'. Based on these findings, some strategies to strengthen unique and supportive public health systems are proposed.


2017 ◽  
pp. 269-307
Author(s):  
Gunilla Backman ◽  
Paul Hunt ◽  
Rajat Khosla ◽  
Camila Jaramillo-Strouss ◽  
Belachew Mekuria Fikre ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 545-555 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Mason Meier

In confronting the insalubrious ramifications of globalization, human rights scholars and activists have argued for greater national and international responsibility pursuant to the human right to health. Codified seminally in Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the right to health proclaims that states bear an obligation to realize the “highest attainable standard” of health for all. However, in pressing for the highest attainable standard for each individual, the right to health has been ineffective in compelling states to address burgeoning inequalities in underlying determinants of health, focusing on individual medical treatments at the expense of public health systems. This article contends that the paradigm of individual health, focused on a right to individual medical care, is incapable of responding to health inequities in a globalized world and thereby hampers efforts to operationalize health rights through public health systems. While the right to health has evolved in international discourse over time, this evolution of the individual right to health cannot address the harmful societal ramifications of economic globalization. Rather than relying solely upon an individual right to medical care, envisioning a collective right to public health – a right applied at the societal level to address underlying determinants of health – would alleviate many of the injurious health inequities of globalization.


Author(s):  
Lucía Irene Lapenta

Este artículo presenta un análisis sobre las particularidades del razonamiento judicial en materia de salud, en el marco de los modelos de racionalidad material. A tal fin, se analizan cinco fallos jurisprudenciales y se ofrecen algunas reflexiones en relación con el razonamiento judicial subyacente, identificando aquellos elementos que caracterizan la toma de decisión judicial en materia de salud.   This article presents an analysis of the specifications in judicial reasoning in health matters, with reference to models of material rationality. To do that, we analyze five jurisprudential decisions and offer some reflections in relation to the underlying judicial reasoning, identifying those elements that characterize the judicial decision making regarding the Right to Health.


2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (7) ◽  
pp. 938-945 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie London ◽  
Chuma Himonga ◽  
Nicole Fick ◽  
Maria Stuttaford

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 704-724
Author(s):  
Daniel Wei Liang Wang

Abstract There is a growing consensus that fair priority-setting and the right to health contribute to achieving universal health coverage. The right to health creates legal entitlements to receive care and fair priority-setting promotes efficient and just health systems. However, there can be tension between them, particularly when the right to health is judicially protected. This article analyses three approaches to understanding this tension: the first minimises the conflicts between them to emphasise their synergies; the second admits the tension and considers it positive as rights create and protect substantive entitlements against priority-setting decisions; the third also recognises that this tension exists, but sees these substantive entitlements as obstacles for fair priority-setting. Building on the analysis of these approaches, this article argues that the involvement of courts in allocative decisions can be more comprehensively evaluated by assessing whether they promote or impair fair priority-setting rather than by focusing on the direct beneficiaries of judicial decisions. If this argument is correct, then courts using the right to health to create and enforce substantive entitlements to health treatments becomes very questionable.


The Lancet ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 372 (9655) ◽  
pp. 2047-2085 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunilla Backman ◽  
Paul Hunt ◽  
Rajat Khosla ◽  
Camila Jaramillo-Strouss ◽  
Belachew Mekuria Fikre ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document