Health as a Basic Human Need: Would This Be Enough?

Abstract

Although the value of health is universally agreed upon, its definition is not. Both the WHO and the UN define health in terms of well-being. They advocate a globally shared responsibility that all of us - states, international organizations, pharmaceutical corporations, civil society, and individuals - bear for the health (that is, the well-being) of the world's population. In this paper I argue that this current well-being conception of health is troublesome. Its problem resides precisely in the fact that the well-being conception of health, as an all-encompassing label, does not properly distinguish between the different realities of health and the different demands of justice, which arise in each case. In addressing responsibilities related to the right to health, we need to work with a more differentiated vocabulary, which can account for these different realities. A crucial distinction to bear in mind, for the purposes of moral deliberation and the crafting of political and legal institutions, is the difference between basic and non-basic health needs. This distinction is crucial because we have presumably more stringent obligations and rights in relation to human needs that are basic, as they justify stronger moral claims, than those grounded on non-basic human needs. It is important to keep this moral distinction in mind because many of the world's problems regarding the right to health relate to basic health needs. By conflating these needs with less essential ones, we risk confusing different types of moral claims and weakening the overall case for establishing duties regarding the right to health. There is, therefore, a practical need to reevaluate the current normative conception of health so that it distinguishes, within the broad scope of well-being, between what is basic and what is not. My aim here is to shed light onto this distinction and to show the need for this differentiation. I do so, first, by providing, on the basis of David Miller's concept of basic needs, an account of basic health needs and, secondly, by mounting a defense of the basic needs approach to the right to health, arguing against James Griffin who opposes the basic needs approach.

Advocacy for Health Equity: A Synthesis Review

“… 137 Finally, as de Campos and Nixon and Forman note, the use of human rights legislation is limited in an increasingly globalized world, as it is applicable only to nation-states and not to international institutions, corporations, and investors, who increasingly wield power and generally adhere only to voluntary codes. 121 , 135 , 138 (Sources referenced: 2 academic empirical, 12 academic review, 3 academic editorial/comment, 11 gray.)…”

“…Kickbusch, Luis and colleagues, and Marmot maintain that health is a public good and global resource and that high levels of health are a measure of a society's health . Anand and de Campos state that while valid reasons can be made for the existence of economic inequalities (eg, to encourage labor market participation and enterprise), the same cannot be said of health inequalities, because they do not provide incentives and instead represent systematic constraints on individual agency and a denial of equal opportunity . Leppo and colleagues argue that “the intrinsic value of health or health's contribution to sectoral or societal gains can be useful in discussions with politicians and policymakers across sectors.”…”

“…Ratification into domestic law, as Forman notes, does increase the chances of human rights having positive health impacts, though Chapman reminds us that even in countries where human rights legislation has been ratified, many policymakers are either unaware of their international obligations or treat them as aspirational objectives to be attained at a later point in time . Finally, as de Campos and Nixon and Forman note, the use of human rights legislation is limited in an increasingly globalized world, as it is applicable only to nation‐states and not to international institutions, corporations, and investors, who increasingly wield power and generally adhere only to voluntary codes . (Sources referenced: 2 academic empirical, 12 academic review, 3 academic editorial/comment, 11 gray.…”

Adolescents’ lived experiences of making health choices: an ethical point of view

“…Rights are something adolescents are eligible for, that in turn, result in a duty to respect other people's rights . The realisation of health‐related rights includes responsibilities for everyone . Health‐related duties refer to someone taking responsibility for looking after themselves, a commitment to own health care and having respect for others, including the healthcare system .…”

Towards a Unified Theory of Health-Disease: I. Health as a complex model-object

“…49 In the same relativistic vein, Campos 28 argued that conceptions of health as a general label, although applicable to different situations, states and processes, do not account for the wide diversity of socio-cultural contexts. Scholars from several scientifi c fi elds have emphasized the need for theoretical work on the health concept as a crucial effort to promote effective interventions in concrete health-disease situations.…”