Analysing governments’ progress on the right to health

Abstract

Objective To examine the influence of varying articulations of the right to health under domestic constitutions, legislation and jurisprudence on the scope of legal protection for health. Methods We investigated legal recognition of the right to health, by conducting a three-level search. First, we searched databases containing constitutional texts. Second, we did a thematic analysis of those constitutional texts with explicit constitutional recognition of health rights, employing NVivo for coding. For the 54 World Health Organization (WHO) Member States without explicit constitutional provisions, we explored statutory paths, judicial constructions and instances where both methods contributed to the acknowledgement of health rights. Lastly, we confirmed evidence of jurisprudence constructing a right to health based on a combination of domestic law and international human rights norms incorporated directly into the text. Findings We identified 140 WHO Member States with a constitutionalized right to health. Our analysis suggests there are notable variations in the legal scope of protection for health, including breadth of entitlements and the possibility of enforcing these rights through the legal system. We also highlight the critical importance of constitutional acknowledgement, legislative measures, and judicial interpretations in shaping the legal entitlements to health-care services, affecting their accessibility and financial support. Conclusion The analysis offers insights for policy-makers to assess different approaches to health-related entitlements, with implications for health financing and the evaluation of Member States' strides towards universal access to comprehensive care. This analysis also illuminates how distinct formulations of the right to health have varied effects on reducing health disparities.

Using human rights to advance global health justice in an age of inequality

“…Promoting health rights also calls for changes in international and national law. In different forms, affirmative entitlements to health care are now judicially enforceable across many countries, including very low-income countries, such as Uganda [ 7 ].…”

“…Formularies have been changed, institutional practices altered, social discourses transformed, and budgets revised. Diverse populations have been protected by better regulations, received care they otherwise would not have, and appropriated an understanding of their own worth, dignity and full membership in their polities [ 3 , 7 ].…”