Search

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the interest in the right to health, which represents a relatively new concept brought about by progress in medical science and the evolution of societies. The Italian Constitution, in article 32, states the right to health without specifications about the parameter of sex, assuming that this fundamental right is property of women and men indiscriminately. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the right to health has actually been achieved in an equal way from the standpoint of sex, and whether a hypothetically "neutral" approach is actually convincing and profitable in this context. METHODS: This paper analyzes the topic of gender medicine from a scientific and legal perspective, based on current medical literature and its implementation in the Italian and European legal systems. RESULTS: Gender medicine is the only credible response to sex- and gender-based inequalities affecting the right to health, as it provides tools to address persisting inequalities in prevention and treatment, thus pursuing health for all: women and men. CONCLUSIONS: The importance of this path was underlined also by the Summit and the Rome Declaration of 21 May 2021, acknowledging that the topic of sex and gender can no longer be overlooked in focusing a correct and equal healthcare approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: In the COVID-19 pandemic, coordination was certainly late, also due to the scarcity of information disseminated at the very beginning of the pandemic, when countries were inevitably taken by surprise. The lack of information, mainly attributable to the country from which everything seems to have started, has produced a huge delay and numerous uncertainties in the feedback of the WHO and international organizations. OBJECTIVE: The inevitably relevant issue, from a legal point of view, concerns the legitimacy, formal or in any case shared, of the authority in charge of coordinating reactions and policies. The paper analyses the current legislation, soft and hard law, and the undertaken policies concerning emergency responses. METHODS: International and EU legislation analysis. RESULTS: The G20 understood that sustainable, flexible and agile funding systems for health emergencies are essential elements of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. In EU there are many regulations about coordination and response to emergencies in practice in the EU and the Regulation (EU) 2021/522 (EU4Health programme), broadly extends the Union's competence in the field of health and has the objective of strengthening the Union's capacity for prevention, preparedness and rapid response in the event of serious cross-border threats to health. CONCLUSIONS: It is essential to formalize, within international agreements, the institutionalization of relationships, procedures, and the possible recognition of the reference figure. If in the European Union, at least partially, the protocols are there (even if the COVID-19 emergency has blown them up in principle), certainly in relations with non-EU countries the story is complicated, requiring specific agreements. This is the goal of the path started by the Rome Declaration of 21 May 2021 within the G20 – Global Health Summit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]