You keep saying this, but it's not true. Here's why, in one sentence:
Human rights are things humans can do by themselves, like speech, worship, travel, self defense - not things that they must rely on others to provide, like food, shelter, and health care.
vector2 will be along shortly to dispute this definition; his points are not completely without merit, but in the end they don't bootstrap one person's labor into another person's human right. No words or ideas or arguments can.
But let's look at what the World Health Organization says, because they're something of a global authority, and they're often cited as saying something they actually don't.
On their
web page titled Human Rights And Health there's a long bullet list of statements that use the word "right" but you really need to read it carefully. It boils down to "the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right of every human being.” The discussion on that page gets right to the point with
That "ensure appropriate conditions" caveat is a big one.
They go on with
This is
NOT a statement that everyone has a human right to be given food, given housing, given a job, given an education, etc. It's a statement that governments and other people shouldn't prevent people from obtaining these things, and are obligated to establish conditions where people can obtain them.
Note that over and over again they use the phrase "right to health" and not "right to health care". This is an important distinction, and it's not so different than saying people have a right to be happy. That right to be happy doesn't imply another person or the government must provide strawberry ice cream (with sprinkles) to everyone who can't be happy without it. I'm only being a little facetious here. Check out what's declared in one of our nation's founding documents:
The "right to health" as identified by WHO is, in practical terms, not more than the right to the "pursuit of happiness" - it implies that these are things that people can seek for themselves without interference or oppression from governments and other people. Not that one person is entitled to be given these things by another person.
The defense of the right to have these things can be secured by governments, and governments (people) can choose to collectively create systems to provide them if they choose. But it is never, ever, under any circumstance, ever, one person's "human right" to take anything from another human. No matter what you think you're entitled to.
The closest the WHO comes to saying universal government-provided healthcare is a human right is a section that includes the line:
In context I interpret this to be a statement related to acceptable regulation, as every other point in that section concerns discrimination, gender sensitivity, quality, etc.
It is just, humane, and worthy of admiration for groups of people (governments) to collectively choose to provide some level of food, shelter, security, education, and yes health care to people who are unable to provide those things for themselves. However admirable (and practical) it is to do these things, that doesn't magically turn them into human rights. This is an opinion, grounded in ethics and morality. It is not a natural fact, an emergent property of the universe.
You can support efforts to create a tax-supported healthcare system for all, or even a UBI if you want to go that far, without pretending fundamental human rights exist where they don't. Don't muddy the waters. Words have meaning.
Also, as a pre-med, you don't get to come into a forum full of attendings and spout off about who's a good doctor and who isn't. Welcome to the forum. Settle down.
