Healthcare and Rights
By placing the legal obligation to provide healthcare on governments, the ideologically driven expansion of the right to health risks undermining the rule of law, stifling political pluralism, reducing individual and economic freedom and options for effective policymaking. Research shows that the widespread official promulgation of the right to the highest attainable health has not made any difference to health outcomes anywhere in the world. In some cases it has worsened inequalities and imposed an intolerable burden on local judicial systems. It is also worth noting that countries that have high quality health provision tend to be market economies with a high level of economic freedom.
The right to health is highly problematic when construed as an enforceable right, with the state legally bound to enforce it in a particular and ideologically skewed manner. It would be better interpreted as a human aspiration whose implementation should be left to the democratic process and be decided upon the basis of the political convictions of the electorate. Elected politicians would then be free to implement (or reject) whichever kind of health system is deemed most appropriate by the electorate, without being at risk of breaching human rights – be it predominantly private or state managed.
Health as a Human Right
If the development community is serious about human rights and improving health, they would switch their focus away from the “right” to health and toward the fundamental rights to personal and economic freedom currently denied to hundreds of millions of people in poorer parts of the world: the right to free speech andthe right to own and exchange property
An interesting, philosophical and in depth critique of healthcare as a “right.” It’s on the long side (16 pages) but well worth the read.
