draft

Human rights are generally understood to be universal and equalitarian. They are inalienable, indivisible, and derived from the ideology of natural law which seeks to uphold universally accepted moral principles. Providing comfort and assistance to the physically and emotionally ill is one of those universally accepted moral obligations, yet the question remains whether healthcare is a human right, or just another commodity to be rationed.

Those who support the idea of healthcare being a human right can cite several historically honored documents. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which was adopted in 1948 by United Nations, in response to the mayhem of World War Two, identified 30 internationally recognized human rights which subsequently formed the groundwork for human rights policy around the world.

Article 25 of the UDHR states, “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”(1)

In 1966 the United Nations elaborated on the core principles of the UDRH in the treaty known as the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Article 12 of the ICESCR elaborates on the right to heath in stating, “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.” (2)

Further advocacy for health care as a human right came from the Declaration of Alma-Ata, ...

... middle of paper ...

...oundation, which would eventually lead to the creation of an immoral society.

I believe that the discussion and debate regarding resource allocation, whether it is on the national or regional level, has become compartmentalized. Simply stated, I am of the opinion that there is insufficient dialogue regarding the moral implications of decisions regarding the allocation of health care resources.

The question of whether or not health care is in fact a human right seems to have become secondary to the decision making processes of the organizations who decide the fate of their subscribers. If Isaiah Berlin is correct, then this is a paradox. If Gandhi is correct, then this might be immoral. Both predicaments are avoidable, but it would involve a very personal internal dialogue on whether or not one truly believes that health care is a positive human right.