Ms. Jinal Dadiya1
1University of Cambridge
The human right to the highest attainable standard of health under Article 12 of the International Covenant of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) has been described as an “ethical demand for equity in health”. In addition to imposing aspirational obligations towards health provision, as well as immediate obligations of non-discriminatory access upon states, Article 12 also envisages obligations for non-state actors. This includes clinics, medical practitioners, private organisations, and individuals. Elements and aspects of the right bear similarity with bioethical principles governing clinical encounters and the provision of healthcare. In this paper, I examine four areas of health regulation, to conceptualise the relationship between the right to health and bioethics. The areas that I examine are (i) healthcare rationing; (ii) the regulation of assisted reproduction; (iii) healthcare licensing; and (iv) the treatment-enhancement debate. In each, I consider the specific bioethics of justice, autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence. Conceptual similarities and distinctions are identified, mapped, and explained. Drawing on these observations, I consider whether the “ethical demand for equity in health” should, by itself considered a bioethical principle. I conclude that the right to health has the potential to direct ethical decision making in health law and, importantly, shares conceptual foundations with the bioethic of justice.
Biography:
Bio to come