UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 24:

The child has a right to the highest standard of health and medical care attainable. Nations shall provide special emphasis on the provision of primary and preventive health care, public health education and the reduction of infant mortality. They shall encourage international cooperation in this regard and strive to see that no child is deprived of access to effective health services.

This convention was not obligatory but was, nonetheless, signed in 1989 by every nation in the UN except for Somalia and the USA. Finally in the mid-1990's the USA did sign this treaty, as did Somalia. It is unknown what part of this document our government representatives found objectionable. Apparently, it was something that only they and the representatives from Somalia were keen enough to pick up on. The signing of this convention by the USA is widely interpreted as an intention to ratify (this is generally the case, ratification frequently lags behind signing).

The nations of the UN agreed that children have a right to not only regular primary care, but preventive health care and public health education and that mothers have the right to the means of reducing the likelihood of their infants dying.

MORE ABOUT RATIFICATION: (from the UNICEF website)
As in many other nations, the United States undertakes an extensive examination and scrutiny of treaties before proceeding to ratify. This examination, which includes an evaluation of the degree of compliance with existing law and practice in the country at state and federal levels, can take several years – or even longer if the treaty is portrayed as being controversial or if the process is politicized. For example, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide took more than 30 years to be ratified in the United States and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which was signed by the United States 17 years ago, still has not been ratified. Moreover, the US Government typically will consider only one human rights treaty at a time. Currently, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is cited as the nation's top priority among human rights treaties. (Fall 2004)

Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1985 

The legal precedents are also not limited to international treaties. The Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1985 required all hospitals which receive any Medicaid payments to provide emergency care or immediate transfer to all individuals requiring such care. The right of confined and convicted inmates to adequate medical care is also well established , as is the right of involuntarily committed patients with mental disorders to psychiatric treatment . Most states also have laws requiring hospitals to provide emergency care as a condition of licensing.

We are not arguing, of course, that the Right to Health Care is already a civil right in the USA, or that the treaties signed to date are already sufficient to bind the US government to protecting universal access to health care for all Americans. To the contrary, we do not believe that this is yet established in law. We do think it is important though to acknowledge the nearly unanimous position of nations on health care as a right, the relevant declarations already signed by the US and the generally accepted concept that health care is a human right. As explained above, human and natural rights once they are widely recognized tend to become codified as civil rights over time, at least in democracies, given adequate time for broad education on the issue and popular demand.

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination  

U.S. Completed ratification on June 24, 1994. The UN General Assembly resolution was passed on December 21, 1965. The treaty entered into force on January 4 1969 - 25 years before the US Senate ratified it.

This convention (CERD) begins with justifications and rationale for introducing this as international law (why it was needed). This law is obviously violated in a country where ethnic minorities are allowed to suffer untreated illnesses with twice the rate of uninsurance (lacking access to quality care) as obtained by people in the dominant racial group. The convention includes:

Considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set out therein, without distinction of any kind, in particular as to race, colour or national origin.

and these three paragraphs: We are -

Convinced that the existence of racial barriers is repugnant to the ideals of any human society,

Alarmed by manifestations of racial discrimination still in evidence in some areas of the world and by governmental policies based on racial superiority or hatred, such as policies of apartheid, segregation or separation,

Resolved to adopt all necessary measures for speedily eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and manifestations, and to prevent and combat racist doctrines and practices in order to promote understanding between races and to build an international community free from all forms of racial segregation and racial discrimination.

"Racial Discrimination" is strictly defined in this convention:

"Racial Discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

Article 2 specifies that nations shall "undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among races. And in compliance with Article 2 (now into Article 4) nations shall "eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notable in the enjoyment of the following rights (including):

Political rights, in particular the right to participate in elections -to vote and stand for election- on the basis of universal and equal suffrage, to take part in the Government as well as in the conduct of public affairs at any level and to have equal access to public service and other civil rights, among them (viii) The right to freedom of opinion and expression and (ix) The right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. . . And also to have equal access to economic, social and cultural rights, in particular (iv) The right to public health, medical care, social security and social services, (v) The right to education and training and (vi) The right to equal participation in cultural activities.

International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights  

In 1945 the US and 49 other nations founded the UN, ratifying the UN Charter commiting all member nations to take actions for the achievement of the newly defined human rights within their respective borders. In 1966 the UN General Assembly turned the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights into two treaties, one of those being the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which the US President signed in 1978 and the senate ratified in June 1992. As of 2004 an implementation act has not yet been passed. Nonetheless, as a ratified treaty the US Constitution declares this treatry to be the "supreme law of the land" and must be enforced by all levels of the US government (including states).

Article 6, paragraph 1 reads:

Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

This law clearly sets forth a right to life, which in practice has been recognized to encompass more than not dying as a result of actions directly attributable to the state. It has been extended to conditions that permit, at a minimum, survival and, more boradly extended to conditions which are conducive to dignity and well-being. The Human Rights Committee of the UN which monitors implementation of the ICCPR stated that:

The expression "inherent right to life" can not be properly understood in a restrictive manner. The protection of this right requires that states adopt positive measures.^*1

As explained by Dr. Yamin, "even this most classic 'individual' right cannot be properly understood (or enjoyed) as a liberty in a vacuum, which requires only restraint on the part of the state. On the contrary, guaranteeing a meaningful right to life entails ensuring that enabling conditions are in place both in the public and private spheres of every nation." As an example, consider that in 1982 the UN HRC defined thye role of the state in protecting human life to include obligations to reduce infant mortality, to increase life expectancy, and to eliminate malnutrition and epidemics.^*2 And even in cases of less direct effect have found that certain national policies such as those relating to protections from domestic violence and to severe criminal penalties being imposed on abortion (which indirectly act to increase maternal mortality) implicate the right to life.^*3

American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man  

As in many other regions of the world (Africa, Europe, Southeast Asia) agreements supporting and extending the ICESCR have been adopted by the major regional bodies of nations. The Organization of American States (OED according to the spanish) adopted a common declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man in 1948. Article XI:

Every person has the right to the preservation of his health through sanitary and social measures relating to food, clothing, housing and medical care, to the extent permitted by public and community resources.

The Inter American Court on Human Rights in 1984 interpreted and extended this treaty even to affairs less directly involved than health care facilities or resources themselves. It was found that even highway planning in a Brazilian case the government needed to take preventive and curative measures to protect the lives and health of the indigenous population. ^*4 Also note that the Right to Health precedes the Right to Education which is Article XII of this document.

Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)  

In 1994 the World Trade Organizations adopted the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellecutal Property Rights (TRIPS). Quickly cases emerged which pitted property rights of inventors and developers of such technology as new pharmaceuticals, tests and medical instrumentation against any right that the world's citizens (especially the more impovershed) might have to health care. However this apparent conflict in rights has been dealt with clearly and quickly by the responsible world agencies. Prior to any consideration of intellectual property rights, even the ICESCR itself states clearly in Article XV:

Signatories recognize the right of everyone ... to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications

and the second General Statement ever adopted by the ESCR Committee states (2001):

The document seeks to identify some of the key human rights principles that are required to be taken into account in the development, interpretation and implementation of contemporary intellectual property regimes. ... The realsms of trade, finance and investment are in no way exempt from human rights principles.

And this General Statement continues that both national legislation and international rules and plicies relating to TRIPS must abide by international human rights law. The ESCR Committee thereby affirmed that:

The end which intellectual property protection should serve is the objective of human well-being, to which international human rights instruments give legal expression . . . and that any intellectual property regime that makes it more difficult for a State to comply with its core obligations in relation to health, food, education or with any other right set out in the Covenant is inconsistent with the legally binding obligations of the stte party.

Clearly, then where there is any conflict between property rights and obligations under the ICESCR the responsible international body has clearly indicated that intellectual property rights are secondary.

CONTINUE reading more legal documents on the Right to Health Care CLICK HERE

References

1. General Assembly Resolution 2200 on the ICCPR, documented in UN GAOR Supp No. 16, UN Document A/6316 (1966) and entered into force on March 23, 1976.

2. "The Right to Life" UN GAOR Human Rights Committee, 37th Session, Supplement No. 40, Gen Comment No. 5 Paragraph 5, UN Doc. A/37/40 (1982)

3. "The Right to Life" UN GAOR Human Rights Committee, 37th Session, Supplement No. 40, Gen Comment No. 5 Paragraph 5, UN Doc. A/37/40 (1982)

4. Inter-Am Court of Human Rights, Annual Report 1984-5, Resolution No. 12/85, Case No. 7615 (1985) at Resolutions Paragraph 3(a), (c) available CLICK HERE.