No abstract

This chapter addresses the international organizations that have accepted human rights obligations as a way of framing their global health policies, programs, and practices. International organizations within the United Nations (UN) system are engaged in implementing human rights—in both the mission they carry out and the way in which they carry out that mission. The UN has called on all programs, funds, and specialized agencies to mainstream human rights across their efforts, and various agencies have taken up this call to advance human rights for public health – beginning with the evolving role of the World Health Organization and expanding to encompass a sweeping set of international organizations that address health determinants. While there remain obstacles to the systematic operationalization of human rights across the global health governance landscape, international organizations are seeking to integrate their efforts to mainstream human rights in global health.

The International Health Regulations (ihr), of which the World Health Organization is custodian, govern how countries collectively promote global health security, including prevention, detection, and response to potential global health emergencies such as the ongoing covid-19 pandemic. While Article 44 of this binding legal instrument requires countries to collaborate and assist each other in meeting their respective obligations, recent events demonstrate that the precise nature and scope of these legal obligations are ill-understood. A shared understanding of the level and type of collaboration legally required by the ihr is a necessary step in ensuring these obligations can be acted upon and fully realized, and in fostering global solidarity and resilience in the face of future pandemics. In this consensus statement, public international law scholars specializing in global health consider the legal meaning of Article 44 using the interpretive framework of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The International Health Regulations (ihr), of which the World Health Organization is custodian, govern how countries collectively promote global health security, including prevention, detection, and response to global health emergencies such as the ongoing covid-19 pandemic. Countries are permitted to exercise their sovereignty in taking additional health measures to respond to such emergencies if these measures adhere to Article 43 of this legally binding instrument. Overbroad measures taken during recent public health emergencies of international concern, however, reveal that the provision remains inadequately understood. A shared understanding of the measures legally permitted by Article 43 is a necessary step in ensuring the fulfillment of obligations, and fostering global solidarity and resilience in the face of future pandemics. In this consensus statement, public international law scholars specializing in global health consider the legal meaning of Article 43 using the interpretive framework of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

As scientific understanding of the heritable aspects of cancer deepens, the need to effectively communicate genetic information within the families of cancer patients becomes more acute. In the palliative care context, the question of when and how to disclose a patient's genetic information raises a host of ethical, legal, and social issues, including the challenges of communicating during the end-of-life stage and complex familial and cultural dynamics. In this paper, the authors outline the legal components of these issues in three civil law jurisdictions with similarly comprehensive approaches to healthcare and palliative care-Quebec, Belgium, and France-and provide insights from bioethics literature and normative documents on the disclosure of genetic information at the end of life. From this research, the authors propose a strategy for palliative care providers who are considering available options to communicate hereditary health information.