Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The importance of ‘social responsibility’ in the promotion of health

  • Scientific Contribution
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The publication of the Report of the International Bioethics Committee of Unesco on Social responsibility and health provides an opportunity to reshape the conceptual framework of the right to health care and its practical implications. The traditional distinctions between negative and positive, civil-political and economic-social, legal and moral rights are to be questioned and probably overcome if the goal is to pursue ‘the highest attainable standard of health’ as a fundamental human right, that should as such be guaranteed to every human being. What we are called upon to, is the commitment not to exclude now and forever anyone from having access to the ‘excellence’ of scientific and medical progress. Therefore, the addressees of this ‘responsibility’ cannot be just the governments and the states within the limits of their ‘jurisdiction’. The challenge is to tackle at the same time the social and global determinants of health.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Archer, R. 2008. Pandemic influenza planning and response—Transnational issues for governments. In Addressing ethical issues in pandemic influenza planning. Discussion papers. Geneva: Who Document Production Services.

  • Beitz, C. 1979. Political theory and international relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, D. 2000. False hope. Why America’s quest for perfect health is a recipe for failure. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Economic, Social and cultural rights. 2000. General Comment N. 14.

  • Council of Europe. 1996. European Social Charter (revised). European Treaty Series, n. 163.

  • Council of Europe. 1997. Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: Convention on human rights and biomedicine (Oviedo). European Treaty Series, n. 164.

  • Dahl Rendtorff, J., and P. Kemp. 2000. Basic ethical principles in bioethics and biolaw, Vol. I: Autonomy, dignity, integrity and vulnerability. Report to the European Commission of the Biomed-II Project ‘Basic ethical principles in bioethics and biolaw’ 1995-1998. Guisson (Catalunya): Centre for Ethics and Law, Copenaghen, Denmark and Institut Borja de Bioètica.

  • Daniels, N., and J.E. Sabin. 2008. Setting limits fairly: learning to share resources for health. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewald, F. 1996. Histoire de l’Etat providence. Paris: Grasset et Fasquelle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R.E. 2010. Strategic management. A stakeholder approach. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo: Cambridge University Press.

  • Habermas, J. 1998. Die postnationale konstellation. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • International covenant on civil and political rights. New York: United Nations (1966).

  • International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. New York: United Nations (1966).

  • Jonas, H. 1979. Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Frankfurt a.M.: Insel Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Palomo, A. 2009. Article 14: Social responsibility and health. In The Universal declaration on bioethics and human rights. Background, principles and application, ed. H. ten Have, and M.S. Jean, 219–230. Paris: Éditions Unesco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R.A., R.E. Freeman, and A.C. Wicks. 2007. Che cosa non è la teoria degli stakeholder. In Teoria degli stakeholder, ed. R.E. Freeman, G. Rusconi, and M. Dorigatti. Milano: Franco Angeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pogge, T. 2006. Do Rawls’s two theories of justice fit together? In Rawls’s law of peoples: a realistic utopia?, ed. R. Martin, and D.A. Reidy, 206–225. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pogge, T. 2008. World poverty and human rights. Cambridge-Malden: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. 1999. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. 2010. The idea of justice. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. 1759. The theory of moral sentiments. London: Millar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. 2006. Making globalization work. The next steps to global justice. London: Allen Lane, Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, K.C. 2004. Justice without borders: cosmopolitanism, nationalism, and patriotism. Cambridge,MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. 2005. Universal declaration on bioethics and human rights. Paris: Unesco.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. 2010. Report of the international bioethics committee on social responsibility and health. Paris: Unesco.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefano Semplici.

Additional information

Stefano Semplici is a member of the International Bioethics Committee of Unesco.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Semplici, S. The importance of ‘social responsibility’ in the promotion of health. Med Health Care and Philos 14, 355–363 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-011-9329-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-011-9329-9

Keywords

Navigation