Definition and Origin of the concept "Right to Health Care"

In the aftermath of the Holocaust, revelations coming from the Nuremberg war crimes trials, the atomic bomb, and other horrors of World War II people in a number of countries had a crisis of conscience and found they could no longer look the other way while tyrants jailed, tortured, and killed their neighbors. Steps were taken in the founding of the UN to attempt to hold all countries accountable for protecting these basic rights. Protection from arbitrary jailing, all forms of torture and assassination have come to be understood as almost a definition for "Human Rights". Indeed this is how the term is used most often by the major media in the USA, but the history and breadth of the concept is more profound.

Much earlier, by the 17th century at least, western civilization began to evolve the idea of "natural rights". One of the earliest assertions of human rights was by leaders of the "Diggers" (1650 England). And soon thereafter by major western philosophers who laid the basis for much of the coming Constitutions and Rights documents in both Europe and America. These were rights which were logically a part of what it must mean to be human (essentially), therefore a right in which all humans must share, by virtue of their humanity alone.

A civil right, on the other hand, is a right bestowed on individuals who are part of a particular society, bestowed on all or certain individuals by that society. "Fully recognized" individuals in such a society or nation (often known as citizens) have such rights as long as they are and remain acknowledged as members of the society. Examples of the concept of "natural right" are Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man" (1792), the French declaration of "Rights of Man and Citizen" (1789) and the French declaration of "Rights of Woman" (1790).

Although it might seem from a philosophical consideration that "human rights" was a European concept, it is often considered more strongly associated with America than with Europe.  Roots of applying the concept to real world situations (and thus developing the concept further) date from the our Declaration of Independence (1776) and Bill of Rights (1791), predating other applications and the concrete developments of the concept.  Thomas Paine was an active personality  and influential mind in America from 1776 to 1791 and from 1802 to his death in 1809.  Although, like Ben Franklin (a signer of the Declaration of Independence), Paine was also an internationally important personality he is can be considered thoroughly American, having fought in Washington's army and being a landed citizen of the young USA until his death. The fact that the concept of "human rights" philosophically predates the first applications which were in America and at the moment the USA was first conceived (philosophies of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau also) does not diminish the widely accepted American nature of the concept.  Indeed prior to the founding of our country all colonists were subjects of European states.

The concept of human rights was inextricably linked to the founding of our nation - as it had never before been linked to the founding of any nation. The author of our declaration of independence, Thomas Jefferson was the earliest major proponent specifically of the "Right to Health Care" of probably person in the world. See the "Democracy" for a complete discussion of Jefferson's ideas.

There are connections between civil rights and natural or human rights. Civil Rights empower the specified individuals within a given society to claim the corresponding "natural right". Usually a civil right is based on the idea that there is a pre-existing "natural right" that had yet to be officially sanctioned. Thus the "Right to Vote" for women (1920) and for African Americans (1856) recognized the humanity of these people, since all citizens (people of a nation) were already thought to require voting rights within a democracy. Having a voice in how they were governed was (if not a natural right of all humanity), at least, the natural right of anyone in a society professing to run according to democratic ideals.

It makes a lot of sense to Project EINO that the concepts of human rights continue to expand steadily as the world becomes increasingly civilized and more closely linked (one nation with another, shorter travel times, greater trade etc). In this world, the modern world we read about every day, many rights and human values, as well as principles for governing are shared and enforced among nations - at least this seems to go on within all self-declared democratically-oriented nations. These rights are therefore human rights, exactly as the UN Charter and treaties have agreed for many decades now, since they ought to apply to all humans within the community of civilized nations.

We support the idea recommended by many modern philosophers and enacted by most modern nations that human rights have and are evolving, certainly to include already certain economic, social and cultural rights. Consider a new book on "Rethinking Human Rights for the New Millenium" with its many references to other philosophical work. (Summary   Publication Details). A look through the documents at this website also makes it very clear that this is so. The USA, in particular, has been and should continue being a leading participant in this international trend.

How does the "Right to Health Care" fit into the category of "human rights"?  Or we might ask, should the "Right to Health Care" be a human right and a civil right in the USA?

Even if we could convince everyone in the USA that "human rights" have always been expanding as civilizations progress and that even "civil rights" have been expanding continually throughout our nation's history, there would likely still be many people resistant to this expansion in general and some who are opposed to the idea of health care, in particular, becoming a right in this country. They may say it just doesn't look like the list of rights needs such expansion. How carefully, though, have they considered the issue? Did any of the other more recently recognized rights in the US look like they belonged on the list (say in the view of 90% of Americans, or in the view of the most powerful men of the era)? Consider the right of the disabled to be provided with comparable secondary education facilities, or the right of girls to have some reasonable funding for their athletic programs at public universities. Or consider broader rights such as that of African American children to attend the same schools as white children, or the right of any person in this country to be seen and medically stabilized in any Emergency Room in this country. How did these rights come to be accepted and formally established?

Is there something special about this point in history? So that it is reasonable to expect that expansion will now cease and the list will be considered complete for decades to come? Or such that the "Right to Education" belongs on the list, but the "Right to Health Care" does not? Or is it just a matter of how people are accustomed to thinking, combined possibly with their fears and prejudices? Let's consider for one moment what it means if health care is not a right.

It is useful to keep in mind that in modern U.S. society there are only two alternatives for a human need like health care, either it is to be considered a privilege for some (usually those who are sufficiently wealthy, and otherwise priveleged), or it is a right to be respected for everyone. Opponents to considering health care a right may want it to be a widespread privilege (through incremental reforms of health) but they want it to remain a privilege. They do not want health care to be something which we all can expect and demand.

There are also some special arguments for the recognition of the right to health care, which don't pertain to other rights currently accepted or not. These arguments have to do with the fact that everyone is put at risk if public health (general health, of everyone) is allowed to fail. Diseases are often infectious, public health measures and prevention of dangerous health practices endanger wide sectors, whole geographic regions and at times the whole nation. Most plans for real UHC include a strengthening and integration with an expanded public health system. Of course, this will even more clearly be of benefit to us all once our health costs are more strongly linked in a well-planned UHC system.