A human rights-based approach to health provides a set of clear principles for setting and evaluating health policy and service delivery, targeting discriminatory practices and unjust power relations that are at the heart of inequitable health outcomes.
In pursuing a rights-based approach, health policy, strategies and programmes should be designed explicitly to improve the enjoyment of all people to the right to health, with a focus on the furthest behind first. The core principles and standards of a rights-based approach are detailed below.
Are You In The Right Room
States and other duty-bearers are answerable for the observance of human rights. However, there is also a growing movement recognising the importance of other non-state actors such as businesses in the respect and protection of human rights. (2)
Any discrimination, for example in access to health care, as well as in means and entitlements for achieving this access, is prohibited on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, physical or mental disability, health status (including HIV/AIDS), sexual orientation ,and civil, political, social or other status, which has the intention or effect of impairing the equal enjoyment or exercise of the right to health.
The principle of non-discrimination and equality requires WHO to address discrimination in guidance, policies, and practices, such as relating to the distribution and provision of resources and health services. Non-discrimination and equality are key measures required to address the social determinants affecting the enjoyment of the right to health. Functioning national health information systems and availability of disaggregated data are essential to be able to identify the most vulnerable groups and diverse needs.
No matter what level of resources they have at their disposal, progressive realisation requires that governments take immediate steps within their means towards the fulfilment of these rights. Regardless of resource capacity, the elimination of discrimination and improvements in the legal and juridical systems must be acted upon with immediate effect.
States should not allow the existing protection of economic, social, and cultural rights to deteriorate unless there are strong justifications for a retrogressive measure. For example, introducing school fees in secondary education which had formerly been free of charge would constitute a deliberate retrogressive measure. To justify it, a state would have to demonstrate that it adopted the measure only after carefully considering all the options, assessing the impact and fully using its maximum available resources.
WHO has made a commitment to support Member States in their efforts to mainstream human rights into healthcare programmes and policies by looking at underlying determinants of health as part of a comprehensive approach to health and human rights.
Addressing the needs and rights of individuals at different stages across the life course requires taking a comprehensive approach within the broader context of promoting human rights, gender equality, and equity.
As such, WHO and partners work with Member States to build on existing approaches in gender, equity, and human rights to generate more effective and robust solutions to health inequities. This work builds on the foundational strengths and complementarities among these approaches to create a cohesive and efficient approach to promoting health and well-being for all.
(1) Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.UN General Assembly. 2015. 21 October. UN Doc. A/RES/70/1.(2) General comment No. 20: Non-discrimination in economic, social and cultural rights
Hotels are faced with a delicate balancing act when it comes to maintaining guest privacy. Hotel staff must comply with police investigations when noncompliance would constitute obstruction of justice. At the same time, hotel employees must recognize their guests' Fourth Amendment right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. If hotel employees comply with an unreasonable search or seizure that results in harm to the guest, the hotel could find itself exposed to civil liability.
Courts have recognized that the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches and seizures in hotel and motel rooms. Certain exceptions allow for warrantless searches and seizures, including consent. In broad terms, the consent exception means that a party's agreement, actual or implied to a search and/or seizure renders a warrant unnecessary.
In general, during a guest's stay at the hotel, only the guest may consent to a search of his or her room. While hotel staff members may access the room for cleaning and maintenance during the guest's stay, they are not authorized to allow police to enter the room. Thus, during a guest's tenancy at the hotel, employees should not allow police to enter the guest's room without a search warrant.
Fourth Amendment protections do not apply after a guest's tenancy expires, at which point those employees with proper authorization from the hotel may aid the police and consent to a search of the room. While this seems like a straightforward principle, it is not always clear when a tenancy actually expires for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. When faced with this lack of clarity, hotels can take certain actions to ensure careful compliance with the Fourth Amendment by issuing and consistently following policies regarding (a) guest checkout and (b) eviction of guests.
A guest's Fourth Amendment rights expire once the checkout time has passed. However, this may be modified by the hotel's practices and guest communications. Consequently, hotel policies and practices may extend Fourth Amendment protections past the guest's pre-arranged checkout time. For example, if a hotel gives a guest permission to stay until a later checkout time or has a practice of acquiescing when a guest stays past the posted checkout time, Fourth Amendment protections last until that later check-out time. Courts have found that after a hotel provided specific guests with such an allowance, those guests "reasonably believed that the hotels would allow them to do so again, permitting them to retain a privacy interest in their rooms." Courts realize that most hotels have a pattern or practice of allowing guests some leeway regarding the checkout time. 2ff7e9595c
Comments