The tendency to translate expectations and needs into the language of rights is a means of putting these expectations and needs beyond political, cultural or social whims, making them indisputable. Thus, the concept of rights becomes attractive as it strengthens demands and enables them to be claimed. We could say that the reference to rights is important not only because rights guarantee a series of needs and expectations, but also, most importantly, because of the very way they are worded. But are rights always indisputable? We believe that their indisputable na- ture depends on overcoming a number of problems that regard their justification and the degree of legal recognition achieved.
The keywords \u201crights\u201d and \u201chuman rights\u201d are at constant risk of vagueness, one that may compromise their very effectiveness. The grey area surrounding hu- man rights may concern the definition of their content, their justification, and the corresponding obligations. Perhaps the clearest example is the World Health Organization\u2019s (WHO) definition of health, which demonstrates the often structural (and, we should add, convenient) vagueness of the content of rights. In this per- spective, health is not merely the absence of disease and infirmity but \u201ca state of complete physical, mental and social well-being\u201d. What do they mean by \u201cwell-being\u201d? What, if any, are the gradations it encompasses? Who needs to act so that this well-being can be enjoyed and how can it be achieved? These are the key questions when giving legal form to this demand. The minimum gradation of this con- cept, and consequently of the very concept of health as a right, is to guarantee that every individual has access to basic healthcare regardless of geographical, financial and social barriers, whatever their culture or race.
This chapter explores the reasons why health is an essential need legally protected as a human right
