Limiting Rights and Freedoms in the Context of Ebola and Other Public Health Emergencies: How the Principle of Reciprocity Can Enrich the Application of the Siracusa Principles
In: Health and Human Rights, Band 17, Heft 1, S. 52
ISSN: 1079-0969
7 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Health and Human Rights, Band 17, Heft 1, S. 52
ISSN: 1079-0969
In: Health and Human Rights, Band 17, Heft 1
One of the key components of CESCR General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (GC 14) is the recognition that human rights are necessarily interdependent and that the social determinants of health are important to the promotion of health itself; as stated in paragraph 3 '...other [human] rights and freedoms [e.g., food, housing] address integral components of the right to health.'1 GC 14, paragraph 16 maintains that a right to health also includes the right to control the spread of infectious diseases via a variety of control measures, some of which are restrictive. The use of restrictive measures during infectious disease outbreaks, including measures like quarantine, isolation, and travel prohibitions, restrict or limit basic human rights prescribed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, such as freedom of movement (Article 13) and the right to peaceful assembly (Article 20), for the sake of protecting and promoting the health of individuals and communities.2. Adapted from the source document.
In: Health and Human Rights, Band 17, Heft 1, S. 52-57
One of the key components of CESCR General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (GC 14) is the recognition that human rights are necessarily interdependent and that the social determinants of health are important to the promotion of health itself; as stated in paragraph 3 '...other [human] rights and freedoms [e.g., food, housing] address integral components of the right to health.'1 GC 14, paragraph 16 maintains that a right to health also includes the right to control the spread of infectious diseases via a variety of control measures, some of which are restrictive. The use of restrictive measures during infectious disease outbreaks, including measures like quarantine, isolation, and travel prohibitions, restrict or limit basic human rights prescribed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, such as freedom of movement (Article 13) and the right to peaceful assembly (Article 20), for the sake of protecting and promoting the health of individuals and communities.2. Adapted from the source document.
OBJECTIVES: 'Social justice' and 'health equity' are core values in public health. Yet, despite their normative character, the numerous normative accounts of social justice and equity are rarely acknowledged, meaning that these values are often unaccompanied by an explanation of what they require in practice. The objective of this study was to bridge this normative scholarship with information about how these 'core values' are integrated and interpreted by Canadian public health policy-makers. METHODS: Twenty qualitative interviews with public health policy-makers recruited from public health organizations in Canada, analyzed using an 'empirical ethics' methodology that combined empirical data with normative ethical analysis involving theories of justice. FINDINGS: Participants viewed health equity and social justice as distinct, where the former was perceived as 'clearer'. Health equity was conceptualized as focusing attention to 'proximal' disparities in access to services and 'materialistic' determinants of health, whereas social justice was conceptualized as focusing on structural issues that lead to disadvantage. Health equity was characterized as 'neutral' and 'comfortable', whereas social justice was characterized as 'political' and 'uncomfortable'. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that health equity dominates the discursive space wherein justice-based considerations are brought to bear on public health activities. As a result, 'uncomfortable' justice-based considerations of power imbalances and systematic disadvantage can be eschewed in practice in favour of attending to 'proximal' inequities. These findings reveal the problematic ways in which considerations of justice and equity are, and are not, being taken up in public health policy, which in turn may have negative implications for the public's health.
BASE
In: Bulletin of the World Health Organization: the international journal of public health = Bulletin de l'Organisation Mondiale de la Santé, Band 98, Heft 4, S. 290-292
ISSN: 1564-0604
In: Public Health Ethics Analysis 8
Chapter 1: Introduction: Research Ethics and Health Policy in Epidemics and Pandemics -- Chapter 2: Setting Research Priorities -- Chapter 3: Research Quality and Dissemination -- Chapter 4: Boundaries Between Research, Surveillance and Monitored Emergency Use -- Chapter 5: Adapting and adaptive research. Chapter 6: Ethics Review Challenges -- Chapter 7: Ethical Issues Associated with Managing and Sharing Individual-Level Health Data During a Public Health Emergency -- Chapter 8: Dimensions of Vulnerability -- Chapter 9: Participant Recruitment, Consent and Post-Trial Access to Interventions -- Chapter 10: Afterword.
In: Bulletin of the World Health Organization: the international journal of public health = Bulletin de l'Organisation Mondiale de la Santé, Band 99, Heft 2, S. 155-161
ISSN: 1564-0604