Health and Human Rights最新文献

Different Council of Europe organs have been attentive and reactive to specific human rights issues in the COVID-19 context, quickly alerting on the risks of inequitable access to quality health care, vaccines, or medicines for vulnerable groups. Yet these reactions have mainly taken the form of nonbinding instruments such as declarations, statements, and recommendations. Although these reactions derive from the interpretation of binding Council of Europe conventions, the observance or implementation of these conventions is not always monitored. Strasbourg judges have on several occasions confirmed that European Convention on Human Rights case law must consider other international instruments, especially those of other Council of Europe organs, in order to interpret the guarantees of the convention. As a consequence, soft law rules can sometimes indirectly acquire binding force when used as an interpretation and implementation tool for binding treaties. In this paper, I examine how Council of Europe organs interpret the principle of equitable access to health care of appropriate quality in the context of a pandemic and whether and how this interpretation is being implemented within the Council of Europe's interpretation of binding treaties such as the Medicrime Convention, the European Social Charter, and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The provision of basic sexual and reproductive health services in humanitarian settings, including armed conflict, is extremely limited, causing preventable mortalities and morbidities and violating human rights. Over 50% of all maternal deaths occur in humanitarian and fragile settings. International humanitarian law falls short in guaranteeing access to the full range of sexual and reproductive health information and services for all persons. Guaranteeing access to sexual and reproductive health services under international humanitarian law can increase access to services, improving the health and well-being of civilians in conflict zones. This paper sets forth ways in which international human rights law on sexual and reproductive health and rights should be incorporated into the forthcoming International Committee of the Red Cross Commentary on Geneva Convention IV, regarding the protection of civilians, to ensure services in the context of armed conflict.

Grounded in human rights approaches, truth and reconciliation commissions (TRCs) explore an event or process that did widespread and systematic intentional harm to a group of people. Health as a fundamental right is an important component addressed by TRCs. Yet despite TRCs often having recommendations for health care systems, it is unknown how well these recommendations are being translated within health care settings. Therefore, the overarching purpose of our scoping review was to identify academic articles that discussed health care system discourse or responses to TRCs in the context of Indigenous Peoples. Our thematic analysis of the included articles identified three main themes for health care system responses to TRCs: (1) the acknowledgment of multiple ways of knowing, being, and doing in health systems; (2) current interventions as responses within health systems; and (3) suggestions for change within health systems. Although a TRC may create a specific road map and mandate for health care systems, we found considerable variability in the uptake of these actions across institutions. Concerted efforts within and around health care systems and across sectors are therefore necessary to achieve large-scale, meaningful change for Indigenous Peoples post-TRCs and to maintain accountability as a foundational human rights principle.