Health care and human rights: against the split duty gambit

Area of Science:

• Bioethics
• Public Health Policy
• Human Rights Law

Background:

• The distinction between a right to health and a right to healthcare is a subject of ongoing debate.
• Existing arguments for distinguishing these rights are reviewed, alongside novel perspectives.
• The ethical and practical implications of separating these rights are critically examined.

Purpose of the Study:

• To analyze the consequences of distinguishing a right to healthcare from a right to health.
• To present novel arguments for maintaining the interconnectedness of these rights.
• To critique the separation of these rights based on domestic and international objections.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical argumentation and ethical analysis.
• Review of existing literature on rights to health and healthcare.
• Development of two primary objections: the domestic and the international.

Main Results:

• Separating the right to healthcare from the right to health leads to objectionable outcomes.
• The domestic objection: States cannot optimally allocate fixed health budgets to maximize citizen health.
• The international objection: Such separation violates the principle of equal standards for all human rights holders.

Conclusions:

• The separation of a right to healthcare from a right to health is morally and practically flawed.
• Maintaining the integrity of both rights is crucial for equitable health policy and international human rights standards.
• Policy and ethical frameworks should recognize the inseparability of healthcare access and overall health outcomes.