Health (Right to)

Primary tabs

Caselaw

En 2004, la Secretaría de Salud de Botswana distribuyó una directiva interna entre instituciones médicas públicas para informarles de un Decreto Presidencial que autorizaba “el suministro de tratamiento gratis a reclusos que no sean ciudadanos que sufran de enfermedades que no sean el SIDA”. Reclusos de Zimbabwe con VIH positivo presentaron demandas para cuestionar ea decreto después de que se les negaran medicamentos de una terapia antiretroviral (TAR).

El 25 de junio de 2015, en el caso King c. Burwell, la Corte Suprema resolvió un asunto que afecta la cobertura de salud de millones de estadounidenses. La Ley de Cuidado de Salud Asequible fue aprobada por el Congreso en 2010 para aumentar la cantidad de estadounidenses con cobertura médica. Bajo la ACA, la población puede adquirir seguros de salud por medio de “bolsas” estatales, las cuales son, básicamente, mercados en los que las personas pueden comparar y comprar planes de seguros.

In 2004 Botswana’s Secretary of Health circulated an internal directive to public medical facilities informing them of a Presidential Directive authorizing “provision of free treatment to non-citizen prisoners suffering from ailments other than AIDS.” HIV-positive Zimbabwean prisoners filed lawsuits challenging this directive after being denied free Anti-Retroviral Therapy (ARV).

On June 25th, 2015, in King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court decided a matter impacting the health care coverage of millions of Americans. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted by Congress in 2010 to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance. Under the ACA, people can purchase health insurance through an “exchange” in each state, basically, a marketplace that allows people to compare and purchase insurance plans. Every state can create its own exchange but if the state chooses not to, the federal government then establishes such an exchange.

In 2011, the petitioners filed a constitutional petition alleging that the government had violated the Ugandan Constitution through acts and omissions with regard to maternal health services. More specifically, the petitioners contended that the government had failed to provide basic maternal health services and to adequately budget for maternal health and that the unethical behavior of health workers led to the preventable deaths of expectant mothers during childbirth.

On 17th July, 2014, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) held the Romanian government accountable for violating the human rights of Valentin Câmpeanu, a youth with severe mental disabilities and HIV positive, who died in 2004. Abandoned at birth, he lived in public institutions all his life. When he turned eighteen, he was shifted to a social care home for adults, and afterwards, to a mental hospital. Here, left in isolation, and in the cold, without necessary health care and treatment, and deprived also of food and proper clothing, he died within seven days.

This case was brought by six pregnant or lactating women who lived in poverty in a Delhi slum.  The women were denied food rations, as well as prenatal and children health benefits which they were entitled to under several national benefit programs.

This public interest litigation case (PIL) was filed via Article 32 of the Indian Constitution directly before the Supreme Court of India and petitioned the Court to direct the State of Uttar Pradesh (UP) to take steps to end child labor. Thereafter a Court-appointed committee reported the enormity of child exploitation in UP’s carpet industry, finding that many children were kidnapped from Bihar, that the industry largely employed minor children under 14 years, and that many experienced physical abuse. 

This case concerns the residents from the informal settlement of Makhaza, part of the Silvertown Project in Cape Town. The City of Cape Town had decided to upgrade the informal settlement under the Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme (UISP).

A coalition of residents sent a letter of petition to the Supreme Court to challenge the Water and Power Development Authority's (WAPDA) construction of an electricity grid station in their neighborhood, on designated "green belt" property. The Court heard the matter as a human rights case, as Article 184 (3) of the Pakistan Constitution provides original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to take up and determine any matter concerning the enforcement of fundamental rights of public importance.