This Resource Guide brings together two of the Open Society Institute’s largest priorities: public health and numerous law and human rights initiatives.
Values, Policies and Rights
Health and Human Rights: A resource guide
Open Society Institute and Soros Network, June 2007
Human Rights and HIV/AIDS: Now More Than Ever
Jürgens R and Cohen J: Public Health Program, Open Society Foundation, September 2007
This publication covers ten reasons why human rights should occupy the centre of the global AIDS struggle. This declaration, endorsed by 24 nongovernmental organisations and networks around the world, affirms that, now more than ever, human rights should occupy the center of the global struggle against HIV and AIDS.
Monitoring Child Well-Being: A South African rights-based approach
Dawes A, Bray R, van der Merwe A (eds): HSRC Press, 2007
This volume provides an evidence and rights-based approach to monitoring the well-being of children and adolescents in South Africa. Drawing on international precedents, and extensive peer review processes, experts in various fields have developed this holistic set of indicators to enhance the monitoring of the status of children.
Show us the money: is violence against women on the HIV and AIDS donor agenda?
Fried S: Women Won't Wait, 2007
This research report highlights the lack of priority given to tackling gender-based violence against women by the major international HIV funding organisations. The research found that the funding bodies continue to treat violence against women as a supplementary issue rather than as something integral to all aspects of their work on HIV. Funding for programmes which combat gender-based violence is a separate stream and these initiatives have not benefited from the increase in funding for HIV programmes in the last number of years. It is very difficult to track the exact amount of money the major funding bodies are devoting to these initiatives and difficult to hold them accountable on this issue. The report recommends that these institutions develop a clear policy framework that gives priority to violence against women and girls, and the link with HIV.
Policy on quality health care for South Africa
Department of Health, 2007
This abbreviated version of the Policy on Quality in Health Care for South Africa follows on the original that became national policy in 2001. It comes at a time when the public health care system is in dire need of again refocusing its collective efforts towards improving the quality of care provided in public health facilities and communities. Knowing that quality is never an accident, always the result of high intention, sincere effort, intelligent direction and skilfull execution, and that it represents the wise choice of many alternatives, this abbreviated version attempts to provide to all public health officials in a nutshell and in a more reader friendly language, the strategic direction health facilities and officials need to follow to assure quality in health care and continuous improvement in the care that is being provided. Health care personnel are encouraged to use this copy of the Policy to focus their intentions and guide their efforts.
South Africa: Health Strategic Plan 2007/08 - 2009/10
Department of Health, 2007
This document describes the priorities for the National Health Department.
South Africa: National Health Act 61 of 2003
Government Gazette 469, July 2004
The Act is intended to provide a framework for a structured uniform health system within the Republic, taking into account the obligations imposed by the Constitution and other laws on the national, provincial and local governments with regard to health services; and to provide for matters connected therewith
South Africa: Strategic priorities for the National Health System 2004-2009
Department of Health, 2004
The Department of Health conducted a review of the period 1999-2004 to determine what work is outstanding and what new work is needed to provide the necessary stewardship of the South African health system.This process has resulted in the adoption of a new set of priorities described in this document.
Human rights and other provisions in the revised International Health Regulations (2005)
Public Health 121(11): 840-845, November 2007
In May 2005, the World Health Assembly of the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted the revised International Health Regulations (2005), which have now entered into force for WHO Member States across the globe. These Regulations contain a broad range of binding provisions to address the risks of international disease spread in international travel, trade and transportation. Important elements include multiple provisions, whether denominated in terms of human rights or other terminology, that are protective of interests of individuals who may be subject to public health measures in this international context. With the vast (and increasing) numbers of persons undertaking international voyages and the global coverage of these revised Regulations, they are an important development in this area. This article describes a number of these key provisions and some of the related issues they present.
Law as a tool in promoting and protecting public health: Always in our best interests?
Martin R: Public Health 121(11): 846:853, November 2007
The organized efforts of the state to protect its citizens from threats to the public's health presuppose some commonality of health beliefs and behaviors, and legislation underpinning public health interventions is premised on the beliefs and behaviors of the population majority. To what extent, in a public health emergency, can members of a cultural or religious minority use human rights arguments to justify exemption from public health measures on the basis of offensiveness of those measures to cultural or religious beliefs? Any such challenge cannot rely on arguments based on autonomy of the individual. The person objecting to the public health measure will need to establish that the burden of compliance will be significantly greater because of offensiveness of that measure to belief, so as to impose on the individual a burden disproportionate to the risk to health of the public as a whole.