Georgetown University Law Center

About: Georgetown University Law Center is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Global health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

Is universal health coverage the practical expression of the right to health care

Abstract: The present Millennium Development Goals are set to expire in 2015 and their next iteration is now being discussed within the international community. With regards to health, the World Health Organization proposes universal health coverage as a ‘single overarching health goal’ for the next iteration of the Millennium Development Goals. The present Millennium Development Goals have been criticised for being ‘duplicative’ or even ‘competing alternatives’ to international human rights law. The question then arises, if universal health coverage would indeed become the single overarching health goal, replacing the present health-related Millennium Development Goals, would that be more consistent with the right to health? The World Health Organization seems to have anticipated the question, as it labels universal health coverage as “by definition, a practical expression of the concern for health equity and the right to health”. Rather than waiting for the negotiations to unfold, we thought it would be useful to verify this contention, using a comparative normative analysis. We found that – to be a practical expression of the right to health – at least one element is missing in present authoritative definitions of universal health coverage: a straightforward confirmation that international assistance is essential, not optional. But universal health coverage is a ‘work in progress’. A recent proposal by the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network proposed universal health coverage with a set of targets, including a target for international assistance, which would turn universal health coverage into a practical expression of the right to health care.

E-Cigarettes, Vaping, and Youth

Abstract: E-cigarettes, a relatively new product, storming the tobacco industry are causing a massive stir among public health advocates. While e-cigarettes have the potential to serve as an effective harm reduction tool for existing smokers, they also may present an equally tempting pathway to first time smoking, particularly among youth. Many fear that e-cigarettes will revive the popular smoking culture that has taken decades to dismantle. In April 2014, the FDA issued proposed rules to “deem” or extend its authority over tobacco products to regulate electronic cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, nicotine gels, waterpipe (hookah) tobacco, and orally ingested dissolvable tobacco products. As proposed, FDA’s rules, among other things, would set a federal minimum age of 18 years to use e-cigarettes, require identification to purchase them (currently, just more than half of states impose age restrictions), prohibit most sales in vending machines, mandate warning labels on packaging, and prohibit manufacturers from providing free samples. Further, companies would be permitted to make claims for reduced risk only if the agency confirms the claim based on scientific evidence while also finding a benefit to the health of the public. While the proposed rules represent a watershed moment in tobacco control, they still leave major regulatory gaps affecting the most vulnerable population, youth. FDA’s silence when it comes to the use of flavored nicotine and marketing practices is certain to have negative consequences for youthful smokers. The agency should move boldly and rapidly to prevent companies from exploiting youth. By bolstering the proposed rules to limit advertising and prohibit flavored nicotine, the agency could prevent proliferation of e-cigarette use among adolescents, while not undermining its regulatory goal of reducing harm. The public health community must speak with a clear voice to urge meaningful and effective regulation to protect US youth against the reinvention of Big Tobacco.

A Broader Liberty: J.S. Mill, Paternalism, and the Public's Health

Abstract: Is the 'harm principle', famously propounded by J.S. Mill and widely adopted in bioethics, an appropriate principle to guide public health regulation? The harm principle limits liberty-limiting interventions to only those instances where the person poses a significant risk of harm to others. However, much of public health regulation is not primarily directed to avert risk to others, but to safeguard the health and safety of the individual him or herself. Think about regulations regarding seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, or the fluoridation of water as illustrations of pervasive public health regulations that are primarily intended to safeguard the individual's own health or safety. Even laws designed to reduce smoking are justified, at least in substantial part, by the reduction of risk to the smoker. Certainly, scholars argue that there are 'other-regarding' aspects to these kinds of laws, but there is little doubt that there are strong paternalistic features to these, and many other, public health laws, such as bans on trans fat in foods. This article directly and forcefully questions the Millian principle, making the case for hard paternalism. When seen from a population-based perspective that counts the number of lives saved, paternalism becomes a plausible justification for interventions that do not pose a truly significant burden on individual liberty, but go along way toward safeguarding the health and wellbeing of the populace.

A human rights approach to the health implications of food and nutrition insecurity

Abstract: Food and nutrition insecurity continues to pose a serious global challenge, reflecting government shortcomings in meeting international obligations to ensure the availability, accessibility, and quality of food and to ensure the highest attainable standard of health of their peoples. With global drivers like climate change, urbanization, greater armed conflict, and the globalization of unhealthy diet, particularly in under-resourced countries, food insecurity is rapidly becoming an even greater challenge for those living in poverty. International human rights law can serve a critical role in guiding governments that are struggling to protect the health of their populations, particularly among the most susceptible groups, in responding to food and nutrition insecurity. This article explores and advocates for a human rights approach to food and nutrition security, specifically identifying legal mechanisms to “domesticate” relevant international human rights standards through national policy. Recognizing nutrition security as a determinant of public health, this article recognizes the important links between the four main elements of food security (i.e., availability, stability, utilization, and access) and the normative attributes of the right to health and the right to food (i.e., availability, accessibility, affordability, and quality). In drawing from the evolution of international human rights instruments, official documents issued by international human rights treaty bodies, as well as past scholarship at the intersection of the right to health and right to food, this article interprets and articulates the intersectional rights-based obligations of national governments in the face of food and nutrition insecurity.