The scope: Everyone has the 'right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, which includes access to all medical services, sanitation, adequate food, decent housing, healthy working conditions, and a clean environment.'  (Please have a look at this link for more details.  I think that, at least on paper, every country respects the right to health.)

The Human Right to Health is protected in:

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Articel 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child

Article 5 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

Articles 12 & 14 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women

Article XI (11) of the American Declaration on Rights and Duties of Man

Article 25 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

http://www.nesri.org/programs/what-is-the-human-right-to-health-and-health-care

The scope: Everyone has the 'right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, which includes access to all medical services, sanitation, adequate food, decent housing, healthy working conditions, and a clean environment.'  (Please have a look at this link for more details.  I think that, at least on paper, every country respects the right to health.)

The Human Right to Health is protected in:

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Articel 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child

Article 5 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

Articles 12 & 14 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women

Article XI (11) of the American Declaration on Rights and Duties of Man

Article 25 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

http://www.nesri.org/programs/what-is-the-human-right-to-health-and-health-care

Dear Rao,

I believe that right to 'health' is a really diverse term encompassing various factors, such as psychological, social and emotional well being in addition to the traditional physical health, therefore, talking of right to health as a distinct factor is not possible without considering various other rights that an individual must have.

Rights are culturally embedded. Therefore, both social and environmental concerns are to be taken into consideration. The universality of the rights does stand over against the singularity of culture. In fact, the very policies and management for such a right are different from one country to another - at various rather large scales.

Of course one could wish that the management of rights learned from one place to another. That is, indeed, desirable. However, the reality is quite another thing. 

First look up the universal declaration of human rights from UN - see link.

Art 22 addresses the right to social security - can be linked to healthcare

Art 25 addresses the standard of living adequate for health and well being

Second consider what "health" is. second link - and even there health is not the same for all: "The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights ...". See more in the constitution of the WHO. That is linked to Art 22 with "Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples which can be fulfilled only by the provision of adequate health and social measures."

But what a country sees as adequate may depend on a variety of influences and of course the means/resources available. As resources are limited and can only be spent once ..... Also increasing resources in health and social security is inevitably reducing other fundamental rights - see Art 17 as example.

So you always have to think of the hierarchy of regulations or rights - universal declaration of human rights - patient rights - (national) constitutions - laws - regulations and contracts. Laws and contracts are as a system never consistent = they are conflicting and contra dictionary. To solve problems on this level you go the constitution. If this does not help in solving you can go to the internationally agreed "rights". If this does not help you go to philosophy and ethics (system of bioethics).

But sorry - you won't end up with "one" ideal solution.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/print.html

Philippine Constitution provides the following:

State Policies

Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.

ARTICLE XIII Social Justice and Human Rights

Health

Section 11. The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to health development which shall endeavor to make essential goods, health and other social services available to all the people at affordable cost. There shall be priority for the needs of the under-privileged sick, elderly, disabled, women, and children. The State shall endeavor to provide free medical care to paupers.

Section 12. The State shall establish and maintain an effective food and drug regulatory system and undertake appropriate health manpower development and research, responsive to the country's health needs and problems.

Section 13. The State shall establish a special agency for disabled person for their rehabilitation, self-development and self-reliance, and their integration into the mainstream of society.

***************************

The Philippine Constitution is one of the two (?) Constitution in the world which  includes a constitutionally mandated State duty to provide health services to its citizenry. But whether or not it is self executing or it further needs a congressional act remains to be seen. So far it remains to be challenged in court. The Constitution, regrettably is not a right-dispensing machine with all its buttons ready to be pushed by any citizen. The right to health so far remains elusive in our jurisdiction. One wonders why the right to health is not included in the traditional bill of rights. 

Here are three good sources by Prof. Eleanor Kinney, a friend and colleague of mine...

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=296394

http://www3.nd.edu/~intlaw/V1I1/Kinney%20Article.pdf

http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1611&context=cilj

The Question to my mind can be classified into two parts: 1) is a right to health recognized by the Constitution of the State and if it is; 2) can the Government be held accountable to the provision of such rights?.

I would take Nigeria as a case study. The fundamental principles under chapter II of the 1999 Constitution upholds the welfare and security of the people as a primary purpose of the Government (section 14(2)) and goes ahead to emphasise that the direction of its economic resources must be towards the provision of maximum welfare, freedom and happiness of every citizen on the bases of social justice and equality of status and opportunity (Section16 (1))   . Founded on its social order policy is the obligatory right to provide/ensure policies geared towards provision of adequate health and medical facilities to all persons (Section 17 (3)). Nigeria is further more a signatory to about 45 International Covenants including the African Union Regional Covenants and has ratified most of these Covenants which is visible in its existing laws. For instance her ratification of the ICCPR and the ICESCR which were both acceded to in 1993 makes her obligated to provision of health facilities to its citizens by the rights to health (Both Physically and Mentally) enunciated under Article 12 of the ICESCR mirrored in the Covenant to the Elimination of all forms of discrimination against women (Art. 12 & 14), Covenant on the rights of the Child ( Art 24 especially (2(b)), and other regional Covenants like the Art 16 of the African ( Banjul ) Charter on human Rights etc. These accessions are commendable, but the question remains, can the government be held accountable for the provision or non-provision of adequate health facilities?.

A response to such query becomes interesting when you consider the provision of Section 6(6) (c) of the Constitution, which provides that judicial powers vested in the Courts of Law shall not extend to any act or omission of government regarding the provision of policies under the Fundamental Objectives and directive principles of state policy. In order words, the government cannot be held accountable to the State Policies it gallantly enunciates under Chapter II. This translates to the fact that provision of health amenities, though primary in focus, may or may not be transported in-to reality, if the Government is unable to so do. A Plethora of Case law up to the Supreme Court has also held that the Judiciary cannot pronounce upon such abstract issues because they are not rights but State policies, which exhibits the intent of the government and not necessarily a mandatory act of the Government. See OKOGIE v. ATT.GEN LAGOS STATE (1981) 2 NCLR 337 at 350  where the Justices of the Supreme Court stated that: ‘“ The Fundamental Objectives identify the ultimate objectives of the Nation and the Directive Principles lay down the policies which are expected to be pursued in the efforts of the Nation to realize the national ideals….to conform to and apply the provisions of section 6 ( 6) ( c) of the same Constitution makes it clear that no Court has jurisdiction to pronounce any decision as to whether any organ of government has acted or is acting in conformity with the Fundamental Objectives and Directives Principles of State Policy”; ATT.GEN ONDO STATE v. AG FED ( 2002) 9 NWLR ( Pt. 772); (2002) 6 S.C. (Pt.I) 1

I would rather not attempt to visit the obligatory status of a Nation State to International or Regional Covenants, when it is obvious that the Constitution of any and every Country is the ground norm of which each law whether acceded to or ratified becomes subjected to. Therefore every law or legislation must comply with, be subject to, the provisions of the Constitution and if found to contravene any provision of the Constitution becomes void (not voidable) to the extent of such inconsistency. Wherein lies the obligation of the State to provide adequate Health facilities for its citizens?. in order words: is the right to health justiciable in Nigeria?. my response would be No.

You might find this article of Interest.  

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8L-F7cTNJpbeTFJWU1MS09mRTg/view?usp=sharing

Also can check UN General Comment No.2. It is for equality, but right to health related.