Health and Human Rights最新文献

This article delves into the expansion of procreative freedom in relation to assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) in South African law, with reference to three seminal cases. In the case of AB v. Minister of Social Development, the minority of the South African Constitutional Court held that the constitutional right to procreative freedom is applicable to ARTs. Importantly, both the minority and the majority agreed on the principle of procreative non-maleficence-the principle that harm to the prospective child constitutes a legitimate reason to limit the procreative freedom of the prospective parents. Following this, Ex Parte KF2 clarified the concept of the "prospective child" as relating to an idea, rather than an embryo. Finally, in Surrogacy Advisory Group v. Minister of Health, the controversial issue of preimplantation sex selection for non-medical reasons was examined. The court confirmed that the use of ARTs falls within the ambit of procreative freedom. While holding that preimplantation sex selection for non-medical reasons is inherently sexist, the court found that a woman's right to procreative freedom-including the sex identification of an in vitro embryo-outweighs other considerations. These landmark cases establish a robust groundwork for a progressive reproductive law in South Africa.

Private actors' involvement in health care financing, provision, and governance contributes to economic inequality. This paper provides an overview of emerging normative trends regarding private actors' involvement in health care by reviewing and critically analyzing international and regional human rights standards on the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Specifically, we survey statements from United Nations human rights treaty bodies and recent jurisprudence of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights that discuss private actors' involvement in health care. We then identify strengths and weaknesses of the current international human rights law framework to address the human rights and inequality impacts of private health care actors, before concluding with a series of recommendations to further develop existing standards.

"Building back better" post-pandemic, as advocated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, could advance the realization of health as a human right. However, the COVID-19 pandemic is more likely to represent a tipping point into a new and even more unequal normal, nationally and internationally, that represents a hostile environment for building back better. This paper begins with a brief explanation of the tipping point concept. It goes on to describe the mechanisms by which the pandemic and many responses to it have increased inequality, and then identifies three political dynamics that are inimical to realizing health as a human right even in formal democracies, two of them material (related to the unequal distribution of resources within societies and in the global economy) and one ideational (the continued hegemony of neoliberal ideas about the proper limits of public policy). Observations about the unequal future and what it means for health conclude the paper.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on long-standing constitutional violations within the US correctional system, particularly affecting vulnerable populations such as senior inmates. By analyzing the impact of COVID-19 in prisons, the challenges faced in implementing preventive strategies, and the specific vulnerabilities of elderly prisoners, this paper identifies potential constitutional infringements experienced by senior inmates during the pandemic and the physical, mental, and social effects of the pandemic on this population. Specifically, this paper aims to bridge the fields of constitutional law, prison reform, elder law, and the COVID-19 pandemic by examining the impact of the pandemic on the rights of senior inmates under the US Constitution's Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The objective is to examine whether potential violations have occurred and propose actions to prevent violations in the future while ensuring accountability and redress if such violations occur. To address such violations, the paper emphasizes the need for increased sanitation measures and decarceration as preventive measures in future public health crises.

In 2022, the global commercial surrogacy industry was valued at approximately US$14 billion. This paper explores the issue of surrogacy to reveal how international human rights standards and labor laws treat reproduction as work, building on previous scholarship analyzing similar framing at the grassroots level in Mexico. I argue that the failure to recognize surrogacy as labor is rooted in three lacunae: (1) contemporary policies and practices around surrogacy globally pay little attention to the well-being and rights fulfillment of surrogates themselves, particularly the economic rights of surrogates; (2) the stigma of surrogacy as sexualized care work results in neglect of the labor rights of surrogates in mainstream economic rights discourses; and (3) relevant international rights law has not yet addressed the economic rights of surrogates, nor has it effectively articulated the interdependent relationship between economic rights and reproductive rights. Lastly, I discuss where reproductive rights and economic rights overlap in existing human rights conventions and standards and what possibilities these offer for articulating the interdependence of reproductive and economic rights and for advancing the labor rights of surrogates.

Thousands of Palestinian prisoners are held in Israeli prisons without trial. For some of them, engaging in hunger strikes is the last resort in opposing unlawful detention and inhumane prison conditions. While mainstream bioethics deliberation, reasonable arguments, and international legal and medical professional declarations prohibit force-feeding, local ethical deliberations, professional medical guidelines, and legislation allow the use of medical judgment and clinical ethics committees to force-feed these prisoners. Until now, Israeli physicians have refused to do so, but this may change in the future. The international medical and bioethics communities need to stand behind these medical professionals, as well as prisoners. Clinical ethics committees in Israel must choose whether they serve the interests of these prisoner-patients and perhaps their political or human rights agenda, or whether they are subservient to an unjust, oppressive regime.