Laurel Utterback #5

 Healthcare and International Law

The interdependence and indivisibility of economic, social, and cultural rights, as well as civil and political rights, have been widely recognized since the conclusion of the Cold War (Yamin). The COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated a variety of structural inequalities within our healthcare system, as well as demonstrating “the gap” between developed and developing countries through resource allocation, research and development, and beliefs regarding the vaccine. However, through morality and equity dilemmas, we have found ourselves facing the question: who is responsible for healthcare? Is it the government, state, nation, or individual who should provide this right? Or is it a combination? Health policy decisions have been thrust into the realms of both domestic and international law, each of which has its own set of concerns, but for the sake of this piece, I'll concentrate on international law. 

The United States is the “only industrialized country in the world that does not provide a plan for universal health care coverage and some kind of legal recognition of a right to care.” Though significant figures such as Franklin Roosevelt and  Harry Truman were advocates for healthcare reform in order to provide for all, these proposals fell short when the Cold War began. Despite the fact that a basic right to healthcare is enshrined in international law when we examine any country, it is impossible to look at those that don’t have human security and say that we are doing a great job. The recognition of a right to healthcare implies that the state has a role in ensuring access to care and resources and ultimately eliminates or reduces the systematic discrimination that has prevented thousands from receiving the care that they deserve.

In class, we attempted to come up with what would be our first reform that would help propel global healthcare in a positive direction, yet the issue is stated in itself: there is no place to begin. With developed countries becoming powerhouses, both economically and resource-wise, it has become increasingly difficult for the poorer, underprivileged nations to even provide basic care to their citizens. The irony in this situation is that wealthy countries, such as the United States, rely heavily on these countries for all other types of goods and services, but simply don’t return the favor when it comes to necessities. Rather, we store thousands of vaccines on shelves, just waiting for them to expire. With millions of dollars put towards research and development, helping an ally in need just doesn’t seem to fit in the nationalistic agenda that has been exposed through the pandemic. 

I argue that healthcare reform is much like the issues surrounding climate change: nobody wants to take the blame, but nobody wants to do anything legitimate about it. Developed countries don’t want to cut back on their healthcare because they defend that they are providing for their citizens, yet they become anything but involved internationally when it comes to spending money on a country that needs it, mainly because they wouldn’t reap the benefits. Yet, it needs to be understood that these undeveloped countries can’t help in the market because they don’t have a solid foundation, so we are once again stuck at a standstill, leaving human security and health at risk for millions due to a lack of cooperation and coordination disagreements.

Yamin, A. E. (2005, July). The right to health under international law and its relevance to the United States. American journal of public health. Retrieved May 2, 2022, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449334/