My question is:

”Does not woman, as a “Human Being”
and therefore, as a “person”,
have the right to health care?

The answer can only be given by clarifying what “person” and “right” mean.

A “person” is a living being, gifted with intelligence, free will and feelings and therefore considered a “valued entity”.

Rosmini, an Italian philosopher, defines “rights” as physical-moral activity, not to be taken away by any other person: thus, the “person” as a valued entity coincides with the concept of “rights”.

If we agree that these concepts are valid, than woman, as a human being, can be no other than a valued entity and therefore, a “right”.

The “person” as a living being, is different from all other livings things by nature of intelligence, free will and feelings; these three faculties allow man a privileged status in the world; these faculties permit man to tend to the metaphysical; to create the best of society and to enrich human culture in the arts, sciences, rights morals and religions.

The distinguishing human factor is his/her internal spirituality; a concept owing to Christianity. In ancient Greek and Roman times, the “person” was no other than a “mask”, the outside of the human. In ancient times, human beings belonged to society as citizens, that is, beings capable of organizing social and political life: in fact, the ancient Romans ignored the universal intrinsic value of humans, only allowing social significance. Therefore, a human existed only as “person” in his interactions with society; if he was born “free” of free parents, he would be “free”, but if he was born of slaves, he would be a “thing”: thus, the words “person” and “mask” became interchangeable within the formal external rapport that ordered family and civic life.

Christianity changed the concept of “person” as “mask”, allowing that a human being is also internal, with a conscience; thus, the human being is by his /her nature, free, and by his/her essence, universal: a being whose fundamental make-up is rationality, free will and feelings, which make the individual a “person” who possesses dignity inside. The human being, made up of these spiritual elements represents a “goodness”, that commands respects, because he has a “higher value” with regard to other beings, and is therefore protected by moral law.

At this point, we can observe that women’s health is a “right”. “Morals” and “rights” are not synonymous in that morals have a positive imperative because they invite good for all; on the other hand, rights have a negative imperative in the sense that they prohibit doing evil to anyone. Morals and rights to approach each other when we see that a person with the above-mentioned elements can only be a “value”; thus a “person” is, in essence, a “right”. A “person” strives for goodness because he is also in essence moral, acting through his free will to work towards good, thus deserving “rights”. For this reason, all people have the obligation to respect the “rights of the “person”. There is a rapport here between rights and morals, in that rights have as their purpose an aspiration to “law” and “justice”, these values are the objectives of “morals”, allowing positive rights to aspire toward self-perfection.

To this end, associations such as our, ought to work to remind less-evolved nations of the “value” of the “person-woman” and of her “rights”, particularly that of the right to healthcare. For this reason, we see current international organizations asking nations to update Human Rights legislation regarding laws to provide women the right to healthcare.

In the last century, in fact, we encounter discussion of these rights, for example, in the Proclamation of Roosevelt in the Four Freedoms of 1/5/1941; in the Declaration of the United Nations of 1/15-1942, in the Project of Dumbarton Oaks of 1944, of the United Nations Rights, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 12-10-1948, and in the Convention of Human Rights of the European Council of 11-4-1950.

If we think about the elements above-mentioned that make up the human “person”, we see that they are also contained in the above cited documents. We can say, therefore that “rights” are not bound by political elements, but by the intellectual and moral conscience of man. The intellectual and moral conscience of man gives a guarantee to supranational laws and makes them effective. For this reason, we have insisted on the relationship between “person” and “rights”, and , accordingly, on the relationship between “rights” and “morals”; obviously the concept of the essence of “person” and the essence of “rights” is contained in that of “woman”. In fact, despite the anatomical difference between “man” and “woman”, the value of the constitutive elements of both are the same, and are therefore found to the same degree in both “man” and “woman”. This is affirmed in the Preamble of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man, approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations, December 10, 1948, where it states, “the recognition of the dignity afforded to all members of the human family and their equal and inalienable rights…constitutes the basis of liberty, justice and peace in the “ world, and that “the people of the United Nations have reaffirmed in the laws, their faith in the fundamental rights of man, in the dignity and in the value of the human person”. In these two sentences we see the concepts of rationality, free will, feelings and liberty that represent the constitutive elements of the human person. Article one of this declaration reaffirms the essence of human beings when it established that “all human beings are born free and equal with respect to dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and they are obliged to treat each other in the spirit of brotherhood”.

Moving on to the specific theme of health, we note that Article Three of said Declaration establishes that “every individual has the right to life...and to the safety of his/her own person” and that article 25 enacts the “right to a way of life that guarantees good health…with particular respect…to the medical treatment…(and) to job security in the case of …illness, (and it establishes that) maternity…(warrants treatment)” These principles are stated in a more specifically way in the Declaration to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Towards Women”, approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 7, 1967 and in the Convention on the Elimination of Every Type of Discrimination Towards Women, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 18, 1979. We reread, once more, confirmation in the 1948 Declaration Preamble and in Article 11”governments are obligated to take every possible step to eliminate discrimination towards women” arriving, particularly…to prohibit, under penalty of legal sanctions, job dismissal because of pregnancy or maternity..(and to assure special protection for pregnant women whose work has been shown to be harmful…(specifying in point 3 that) the laws protecting women in specified sectors(from article 21) will periodically be reviewed with regards to new scientific knowledge and techniques and will be submitted to revision, abrogation or new laws, according to the findings of the review.” We read, further, in Article 14, letter b, second paragraph, that “participating governments” guarantee women, particularly, “the right…to access of the appropriate services in the health field.” As we see, the international community is shown to be particularly attentive to the theme of women’s health, allowing a leap from the knowledge that the “dignity” of the “person” is founded on rationality and conscience, that is, the constitutive elements of the “person”; a position of thought and culture of every member of international organizations and of the cultural tradition of the “participating governments” of the community organizations. Member governments of the U.N. and those adherent to the various tenants of the U.N., have not been insensitive to the proclamation of women’s health rights. In fact, all the Constitutions of said governments have welcomed the aforesaid principles, turning them into programs to positively affect laws.

These tenets are also present in the Italian Legal Tradition, within the programs in Articles 30,31,31 and 38 of the Italian Constitution, relating to healthcare “as a fundamental right of the individual”, and later, the evolution of hospital assistance springing from the laws of the Public Institutions of Assistance and Wellness (IPAC) to the institutional laws of the Hospital Corporate Body of 1968-69, and finally, in the institutional law of the National Sanitary Service, of 12/13/78, no. 833(as integrated into other segments of law). Within the framework of this legislation, we find broad interpretive possibilities with regards to medical assistance for specific women’s illnesses, in particular, tumors in the reproductive system, osteoporosis, menopause, anorexia, infectious diseases (AIDS, TB, skin lesions and sexually transmitted diseases) as well as in the following: prevention of female genital tumors, pregnancy and birth: prenatal diagnosis, spontaneous abortion, threat of premature birth, and gestational diabetes, menopause, cardiovascular risk and osteoporosis in elderly women.

There are other illnesses common to both men and women, and when women are treated for such illnesses, the anatomical differences are taken into account, id: coronary syndrome, which presents different clinical profiles and demonstrates diverse manifestations and results of the illness: in this field, however, there is still need for more medical-scientific research.

In Italian law, as well as in International law, and in particular, in those countries whose Constitutions have legislated the principles of a “Statue of Rights”, the concept of the “dignity” of the woman as “person” and therefore, as a “valued being”, and the related right to healthcare has found a privileged space.

If we consider the way in which, in the evolution of modern laws, the western hemisphere has gradually embraced the principle of the “sovereignty of rights”, we realize that only “human rights” statutes proclaim the legal guarantee of equality to all citizens, without discrimination based on sex, race, language, religion or political opinions. Within the confines of any given law, by stating “democratic” or “right”, the freedom of the human being becomes an inherent internal and potential strength to each individual: this internal strength can grow and expand, but can also diminish. The society, therefore, has the duty to guarantee each citizen the free development of this internal liberty, helping transform power into action. For this reason, equal rights statutes are not seen as static, but rather defined as “possibility for all”, assuming a positive and dynamic aspect, because liberty, which is at the basis of this right, is not a given right that does not decrease and does not grow, but a continuous conquest, which acts as a positive and dynamic aspect in the concept of equality, forcing governments to intervene in a positive way, not just in the fields of education, employment, etc., but especially in the field of health care, with the purpose of assuring equal initial possibilities and equal conditions of treatment for all, demonstrating equality (or better, justice). For example, if a modern government refused women healthcare, or did not intervene to make this right possible, a statute of rights would relinquish it’s meaning, or no longer be a “statute of rights”. Therefore, by virtue of these principles, the government, being aware of the right of positive liberty, MUST intervene within the spheres of education, economy, employment, and above all within the sphere of public health, when private action is not enough to assure all people the right to education, employment to safety and healthcare.

It is to this end that all national and international organizations and associations must now focus their attention on health care, and above all, on women’s health care, because health is a valued “given right” of human beings. This valued right can also be seen economically, since illness not only removes workers from the job, but also represents hidden costs in the budgets of every government, to the extent in which the good “health” of a human creates comfort and happiness, it is also the cause of wealth of every nation, because through work, material wealth is created and therefore also comfort and improvement for all. With this in mind, the Italian Legislature, in the 1978 laws of the National Health Service Institution, has written the principles of rights legislation in its first Article: “The Republic protects health as a fundamental right of the individual and the interest of the group through the national health service. Access to physical and psychic good health springs from respect of the dignity and liberty of human beings”. Here we foresee all the conceptualized statements of “human being”, “women”, “right” and “human rights law”.

We would like to see all these principles and concepts found within the legislation of all countries, but especially in “Third World” countries, where the health of women is so much in danger. This, above all, is the reason for this international meeting of ours: to arouse the attention of all men of good will, to help them realize the need for “human rights” legislation, rendering it functional, in particular to the right of women of the whole world to the given right of healthcare, and to protect and defend the “dignity of women” both as citizens of a given country, but also of the world. Only thusly can the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its concepts be concretized. Through agreeing here to support the right to healthcare for all women, we can say we have completed our task in favor of the greatest human family.