What is the value of the “right” to medical care? It depends
In my course this fall at the University of Hartford, titled “The Right to Health Care and the Constitution of the United States,” we focused on the power of words, precedents and range of interests with this health that has been compromised for several hundred years.
The subject was revealing on several levels. At the most
basic level, it is already clear that the value of this "right"
largely depends on your definition of "health".
We highlight three definitions that are worth sharing here.
The first is attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt. In 1948, as
leader of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, he defined health as
"a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not simply
the absence of disease or illness. ". He also made it clear at the time
that each of us, as responsible citizens, had a level of personal
responsibility for our own health. By virtue of the choices we make and the
behaviors we exhibit, we increase or decrease our chances of being
"healthy".
The second important voice was also a woman. She is a
Norwegian doctor, born April 20, 1939 in Oslo, daughter of a doctor and
politician. He conventional his medical degree from the University of Oslo and
obtained a master's degree in public health from Harvard. She was Prime Minister
of Norway for three separate terms, never having had less than 8 women in her
18-member cabinet. It's called Gro Brundtland. In 1998, she was confirmed as
Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO).
In one of his first WHO guidelines in 1998, he adopted the
definition of health that he described as "partly good and partly
right". He went on to explain: “Kindness in the sense that our
professionals are well trained and qualified; our well-equipped and secure
institutions; our perfectly designed processes; our teamwork is the reflection
of training and excellent communication ”.
"Justice in the sense that these skills and capacities
are distributed in a fair and equitable manner to the widest possible
population."
The third prominent health definer was a Catholic cardinal
of Chicago during those early Brundtland years. His name was Joseph Bernardin.
He had terminal cancer in 1996 and was very focused on delivering health care
services when he addressed the American Medical Association annual meeting. He
said: “There are four words in the English language that have common roots in
English. They are healthy, healthy, righteous and holy. To heal in the modern
world, you have to provide health. But to ensure health, you must preserve the
integrity of the individual, the family, the community and the society. And if
you can do all of that, it is something sacred. "
As the Earth and its inhabitants entered the new millennium,
it became evident that the provision of health services, whether local,
national or global, was a complex human task. Even if you declared it as a
"universal right" as the UN and WHO did, you would still need
responsive programs, trained professionals, equitable access, continuity of
care, funding. , compassion, understanding and partnership. And even that would
not be enough without advance planning, anticipation, scientific discovery and
reliable funding.
