Human rights: Food for a thought we hope not to be declining ‘The right to health’
HRR 727
AS THE CHALLENGE TO THE MARKETPLACE SUPREMACY INCREASES, THE URGENCY OF A HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE ON HEALTH BECOMES CLEARER; IS ITS POLITICAL VIABILITY DECLINING? (Ted Schrecker)
[TLDR (too long didn’t read): If you are reading this, chances are you care about HR. This Reader asks if the right to health is a bit stuck given the growing health disparities. For a quick overview, just read the bolded text]. Traducir/traduire los/les Readers; usar/utiliser deepl.com
–In what looks like a concession to the maldistribution of political influence, the people desperately wait for their government to do something, subconsciously knowing it cannot afford to ignore their plea –but… in all truth, claim holders still do not deploy enough powerful advocates that will help them exert real influence. In these times, hope alone will not sustain the cause. (T. Schrecker)
The onset of this decade has been characterized by further growing health and health care disparities
—Pandemics? Well, they do generate huge profits for rich country pharmaceutical companies and their host governments (as we have seen with Covid). But overall, pandemics affecting populations rendered poor, (as they are rarely solvent customers) do not matter to the powerful. (Alison Katz)
1. Every capitalist epoch has witnessed distinct struggles for health, social justice, and access to health care. Nevertheless, these struggles have increased the class divide in what relates to accessing health services, healthcare, and vaccines worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic illustrates the global public health crisis within the context of a planetary health emergency propelled by a cynical economic system that prioritizes profit-making at the detriment of human and planetary needs. Furthermore, ongoing conflicts and wars over resources —that exacerbate nationalism amidst an increasingly unstable climate– continue to shape the political economy of health worldwide. (International Association of Health Policy Europe)
2. Furthermore, when during the pandemic social restrictions took the form of lock-downs enforced by military and security forces, public health considerations and communication took a back-seat, so there were extensive violations of human rights (HR). There has been little learning from the experience of the lock-downs, and discussions now under way on pandemic preparedness have miserably failed to develop any meaningful binding guidelines on preventing restrictions after differential risk assessments are carried out.
Solidarity on key, existential health issues such as COVID is impossible as long as economic interests of big corporations prevail and are supported by a few countries who benefit most from this (PHM)
3. The current global economic order deals with medicines and vaccines as commodities for the accumulation of profits, whereas solidarity requires their recognition as essential public goods to achieve the right to health. It is high time to stop considering them as commodities.
4. Corporates are only willing to endorse agreements on relatively (to them) uncontroversial matters and endorsing non-binding commitments on crucial issues. But issues like the right to health, for which countries rendered poor are seeking binding commitments, are non-negotiable to them beyond lip service. Commitments sought to truly fulfill the right to health, among other are: a) access and benefit sharing of all health resources, b) technology transfer, c) common but differentiated obligations* and d) non-enforcement of intellectual property rights at least during health emergencies.
*: The principle that acknowledges that responsibility among countries is unequally distributed due to their differing contributions to the causes of what affects them.; itestablishes that all states are responsible for addressing global problems yet responsible to totally different degrees.
5. PPP negotiations mistakenly assume that all governments have the ability to collaborate on an equal footing with big private sector entities (GAVI?) and that they will voluntarily choose to participate in health initiatives aimed at increasing equitable access to privately owned technologies including medicines and vaccines. The Covid-19 pandemic demonstrated that the opposite is the case.
6. Private for-profit companies prioritized vaccine procurement demands from developed countries and lead to extreme inequality in vaccine access and what has been termed a ‘vaccine apartheid’. Worse, some vaccine manufacturers negotiated with developed and developing countries for them to take-on responsibility for any liability claims that could result from the use of their products (a risk that companies themselves had historically been liable for). The description of private sector engagements in the negotiations of PPPs tends to frame collaboration between governments and the private sector as an inherent mutual good. But it fails to specify that: a) collaboration should be for the purposes of public benefit/public good, and b) collaborations ought not to result in public institutions’ barriers to access to the benefits of that collaboration. (all from PHM)
Some tidbits to close
7. Philanthropy is now dominating decision-making in health** (even if it is indirectly through its economic power). Philanthrocapitalism is not an acceptable substitute when striving for fairer social policies. It does not work and it inevitably skews research, especially in the health sector (think Gates). (Francine Mestrum)
**: It is pathetic that WHO falls for this earmarked funding to attract the (new) funding it needs —and not instead saying: “WHO needs sufficient funding for financing its core strategy; period” (and more decisively demanding member states increase and pay their contributions). But in-the-world-we-live-in, this has proven to be over-ambitious; it unmasks the implicit selfish and painful interests and narratives at play… (Thomas Schwarz)
8. Calls to replace cost-benefit analyses in health with ‘co-benefit analyses’ is an attractive proposal, but faces strong practical obstacles. Strong countervailing forces and interests still thwart achieving the broader goals of an equitable access to health. It remains to be seen if Health in All Policies (HiAP) is the right tool by which to implement the new Health For All approach. (Martin Hensher) [I personally think that HiAP actually is a diversionary strategy that moves away from the political economy of the HFA goal].
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
Your comments are welcome at schuftan@gmail.com
All Readers are available at www.claudioschuftan.com