Health (Right to)

Primary tabs

Caselaw

The International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) claimed in a petition before the European Committee of Social Rights (which judges compliance of State parties with the European Social Charter) that France had violated the right to medical assistance (Article 13 of the Revised European Social Charter) by ending the exemption of illegal immigrants, with very low incomes, from charges for medical and hospital treatment.

In 2005, under the Article 26 procedure of the Constitution, the Irish Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of a bill referred to it by the President. This bill authorized charges for in-patient services, provided by the public health service, to be imposed on certain people, in most cases, elderly people of limited means.

The case was a consolidation of two class actions brought under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), which allows prisoners to sue for violations of constitutional rights. California's prisons were designed to hold about 80,000 prisoners, but at the time of filing, the system held about 156,000. In both class actions, overcrowding was found to constitute an 8th Amendment violation because of a serious lack of access to basic medical care, with one case dealing specifically with prisoners with serious mental illness.

Este caso aborda la dramática situación de hasta 100.000 niños (conocidos como talibés), que, mientras asisten a las escuelas coránicas (daaras) en Senegal, son forzados por algunos maestros a practicar la mendicidad en la calle para procurar su propia supervivencia y enriquecer a sus profesores. Los menores viven lejos de sus familias, a menudo en condiciones deplorables, y son sometidos a brutales agresiones físicas, desnutrición, enfermedades, abusos sexuales y otros malos tratos. La mendicidad forzada les impide el acceso a una educación adecuada.

This case addresses the plight of as many as 100,000 children (known as talibés), who while attending Qur’anicschools (daaras) in Senegal, are forced by some instructors to beg in the streets, to secure their own survival and enrich the teachers. The children live away from their families, often in deplorable conditions, and are exposed to brutal physical assaults, malnutrition, illness, sexual abuse, and several other vulnerabilities. The forced begging leaves no time for a proper education.

El 5 de mayo de 2011, Irene Nanteza llegó al hospital de Nakaseke acompañada de su marido. A pesar de que una enfermera confirmó indicios de que el trabajo de parto estaba obstruido y llamó al médico de guardia, este último no llegó hasta que Nanteza ya había cumplido unas 8 horas de trabajo de parto. La paciente falleció por una hemorragia y ruptura del útero.

On May 5, 2011, Irene Nanteza arrived at Nakaseke Hospital with her husband. Although a nurse confirmed the signs of obstructed labor and called the doctor on duty, the doctor did not arrive until Nanteza had been in labor for about 8 hours. The patient died of a hemorrhage and ruptured uterus. Despite the hospital administrator’s awareness of Nanteza’s condition and the doctor’s absence prior to her death, the Court noted that it was not shown that he made any effort to transfer her to another hospital.

En 1991, las Filipinas delegaron la responsabilidad por “la salud y seguridad del pueblo” al nivel local. En ejercicio de estas facultades, en el año 2000 en Manila se pronunció el decreto 003 (“D 003”), en el cual se declaró que la ciudad adoptaría “una posición afirmativa respecto de los temas pro-vida”.

In 1991, the Philippines delegated responsibility for “people’s health and safety” to the local level. In exercise of this power, an executive order 003 (“EO 003”) was issued in Manila, in 2000 which declared that the city would take an “affirmative stand on pro-life issues”. In response to a joint submission from NGOs in 2008, the UN Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (Committee) conducted an inquiry into alleged human rights violations resulting from the enforcement of EO 003.  

El 20 de diciembre de 2012, tres pacientes del Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias “Ismael Cosío Villegas” (INER) promovieron demanda de amparo indirecto 1669/2012 en contra de varias autoridades responsables, de entre las que destacan, el Comité Nacional de Protección Social en Salud, el Comité Técnico del Fideicomiso del Sistema de Protección Social en Salud y el INER, por la omisión atribuible a las autoridades responsables de tomar todas las medidas necesarias para garantizar y hacer efectivo el derecho al más alto nivel posible de salud de l