Search

Additional file 1. List of documents screened for inclusion in the article ���A comparative human rights analysis of laws and policies for adolescent contraception in Uganda and Kenya���.

A critical debate in the race to develop, market, and distribute COVID-19 vaccines could define the future of this pandemic: How much evidence demonstrating a vaccine’s safety and efficacy should be required before it is considered “essential”? If a COVID-19 vaccine were to be designated an essential medicine by the World Health Organization, this would invoke special “core” human rights duties for governments to provide the vaccine as a matter of priority irrespective of resource constraints. States would also have duties to make the vaccine available in adequate amounts, in the appropriate dosage forms, with assured quality and adequate information, and at an affordable price. This question is especially critical and unique given that COVID-19 vaccines have in many cases been authorized for use via national emergency use authorization processes—mechanisms that enable the public to gain access to promising medical products before they have received full regulatory approval and licensure. In this paper, we examine whether unlicensed COVID-19 vaccines authorized for emergency use should ever be considered essential medicines, thereby placing prioritized obligations on countries regarding their accessibility and affordability.

This paper presents a case study of how colonial legacies in Uganda have affected the shape and breadth of community participation in health system governance. Using Habermas’s theory of deliberative democracy and the right to health, we examine the key components required for decolonizing health governance in postcolonial countries. We argue that colonization distorts community participation, which is critical for building a strong state and a responsive health system. Participation processes grounded in the principles of democracy and the right to health increase public trust in health governance. The introduction and maintenance of British laws in Uganda, and their influence over local health governance, denies citizens the opportunity to participate in key decisions that affect them, which impacts public trust in the government. Postcolonial societies must tackle how imported legal frameworks exclude and limit community participation. Without meaningful participation, health policy implementation and accountability will remain elusive. publishedVersion

Background: Cervical cancer claims 311,000 lives annually, and 90% of these deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. Cervical cancer is a highly preventable and treatable disease, if detected through screening at an early stage. Governments have a responsibility to screen women for precancerous cervical lesions. Yet, national screening programmes overlook many poor women and those marginalised in society. Under-screened women (called hard-to-reach) experience a higher incidence of cervical cancer and elevated mortality rates compared to regularly-screened women. Such inequalities deprive hard-to-reach women of the full enjoyment of their right to sexual and reproductive health, as laid out in Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and General Comment No. 22. Discussion: This article argues first for tailored and innovative national cervical cancer screening programmes (NCSP) grounded in human rights law, to close the disparity between women who are afforded screening and those who are not. Second, acknowledging socioeconomic disparities requires governments to adopt and refine universal cancer control through NCSPs aligned with human rights duties, including to reach all eligible women. Commonly reported- and chronically under-addressed- screening disparities relate to the availability of sufficient health facilities and human resources (example from Kenya), the physical accessibility of health services for rural and remote populations (example from Brazil), and the accessibility of information sensitive to cultural, ethnic, and linguistic barriers (example from Ecuador). Third, governments can adopt new technologies to overcome individual and structural barriers to cervical cancer screening. National cervical cancer screening programmes should tailor screening methods to under-screened women, bearing in mind that eliminating systemic discrimination may require committing greater resources to traditionally neglected groups. Conclusion: Governments have human rights obligations to refocus screening policies and programmes on women who are disproportionately affected by discrimination that impairs their full enjoyment of the right to sexual and reproductive health. National cervical cancer screening programmes that keep the right to health principles (above) central will be able to expand screening among low-income, isolated and other marginalised populations, but also women in general, who, for a variety of reasons, do not visit healthcare providers for regular screenings. publishersversion published

Supplemental material, Supplementary_table_4_and_5_09APR2020 for Antenatal Care Practices Among Hard-to-Reach Fishing Communities on Lake Victoria: A Community-Based Cross-Sectional Survey by Ali Ssetaala, Joan Nabawanuka, Gideon Matovu, Nusula Nakiragga, Judith Namugga, Phiona Nalubega, Henry Lutalo Kaluuma, Katrina Perehudoff, Kristien Michielsen, Bernard Bagaya, Noah Kiwanuka and Olivier Degomme in Journal of Primary Care & Community Health

This methodology presents our study which collects, describes, and assesses the text for access to medicines in national medicines policies (NMPs) from 71 countries against a 12-point normative framework and policy checklist of health systems and human rights principles.

Uruguay has witnessed an ever-increasing number of domestic court claims for high-priced medicines despite its comprehensive universal coverage of pharmaceuticals. In response to the current national debate and development of domestic legislation concerning high-priced medicines, we review whether Uruguayan courts adequately interpret the state's core obligations to provide essential medicines and ensure non-discriminatory access in line with the right to health in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Using a sample of 42 amparo claims for the reimbursement of medicines in 2015, we found that the circuits of appeal fail to offer predictable legal argumentation, including for nearly identical cases. Moreover, the judiciary does not provide an interpretation of state obligations that is consistently aligned with the right to health in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These findings illustrate that medicines litigation in Uruguay offers relief for some individual claims but may exacerbate systemic inequalities by failing to address the structural problems behind high medicines prices. We recommend that the judiciary adopt a consistent standard for assessing state action to realize the right to health within its available resources. Moreover, the legislature should address the need for medicines price control and offer a harmonized interpretation of the right to health. These transformations can increase the transparency and predictability of Uruguay's health and legal systems for patients and communities.

This chapter illustrates how human rights principles can help governments, even those with the most modest budgets, scale-up universal access to expensive essential medicines. The key message is that governments have legally binding human rights obligations to immediately take steps to provide essential medicines. These steps include making a maximum of public resources available to finance essential medicines, particularly for vulnerable and marginalised groups, and using those resources efficiently. Crucially, using mechanisms to control medicines prices and, in the case of high priced patented medicines, the use of TRIPS flexibilities, is aligned with governments’ duties under human rights law to ensure access to essential medicines. Moreover, the right to health imposes duties on the international community of States and the pharmaceutical industry to respect and protect access to essential medicines.

This is an example document.

This Annex presents an overview of innovative text for access to medicines identified in national UHC legislation (listed in Table 3). The legal texts have been edited for clarity . The original texts in the national language and English can be found the respective country profiles in our online appendix.Original article: Legislating for universal access to medicines: A rights-based cross-national comparison of UHC laws in 16 health systemsAuthors: S. Katrina Perehudoff, Nikita V. Alexandrov, Hans V. Hogerzeil Date: 14 June 2018

This comparative study collects, describes, and assesses legal text in national UHC legislation from 16 mostly low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) against a 12-point normative framework and policy checklist of health systems and human rights principles.Original article: Legislating for universal access to medicines: A rights-based cross-national com- parison of UHC laws in 16 health systemsAuthors: S. Katrina Perehudoff, Nikita V. Alexandrov, Hans V. Hogerzeil Date: 14 June 2018

This appendix lists the 86 domestic laws from 16 countries that were included in our study.Original article: Legislating for universal access to medicines: A rights-based cross-national comparison of UHC laws in 16 health systems Authors: S. Katrina Perehudoff, Nikita V. Alexandrov, Hans V. HogerzeilDate: 14 June 2018

General Comment No. 22, issued in 2016 by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), clarifies states' legal duties to respect, protect, and fulfill the right to sexual and reproductive health (SRH). Our study analyzes domestic constitutions around the world to investigate whether and to what extent the right to sexual and reproductive health is respected, protected, and fulfilled; to what extent these provisions are inclusive and non-discriminatory; and to what degree the interlinkages between this and other human rights are acknowledged. Of the 195 constitutions accessed, 27 enshrine sexual and/or reproductive health, and seven adopt restrictive approaches to this right. In the 27 constitutions, provisions most frequently enshrine respect of one's sexual health and family planning decisions, the protection of sexual health, and the provision of reproductive health care and family planning services (fulfillment). Most of the 27 constitutions fail to adequately respect reproductive health rights; to protect reproductive health, family planning, and abortion services from third-party interference; and to fulfill all dimensions of sexual health and access to abortion. Three of the 27 constitutions enshrine a universal right to SRH, and additional constitutions protect specific vulnerable groups (such as women, children) and/or restrict the scope of rights holders to couples. Among the 27 constitutions, nine explicitly link the right to sexual and reproductive health to the rights to education, science, and/or to make autonomous decisions about sexuality and reproduction. Our results can serve as a baseline measure to track constitutional reforms in pursuit of the realization of sexual and reproductive health and rights, and as building blocks for future lawmakers committed to realizing these rights through domestic legal reform.