In various international human rights treaties, the phrase 'the right to health' has come to mean an individual's right to the highest attainable health-status possible. But what about the human right to public health during a time of war? This paper looks at the infectious disease control parameters of such a human right, focusing specifically on two principles, namely: 1) the principle of non-discrimination; and 2) the principle of progressive realization. These principles state that any policy undertaken in furtherance of a nation's obligation to public health must be done in a non-discriminatory way and must be done with the maximum available resources. Because these principles are general guidelines and not exact prescriptions for governmental, or even intergovernmental action, there need to be specific approaches fashioned out of the principles. Gostin and Lazzarini describe both a maximum and a minimum content approach to policymaking within these general principles. This paper pursues a comparison of maximum and minimum content in the right to health, arriving at the conclusion that neither the maximum or minimum content approaches to the right to public health will be the best solution to eliminating health disparities during a time of war, either within individual countries or within a global health community. The final conclusion is that the human right to public health is an unsettled norm, leaving international public health practitioners with few treaties or international laws to assist them as they attempt to bridge the gap between healthy and unhealthy populations.
Keywords: Infectious Diseases, Human Rights
Presenting author's disclosure statement:
Organization/institution whose products or services will be discussed: None
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.