Groningen Centre for Health Law

De overheid moet actief ingrijpen om nieuwe geneesmiddelen betaalbaar te maken, schrijven Ellen ‘t Hoen cum suis. Maak gebruik van dwanglicenties en beloon een bedrijf als het een noodzakelijk geneesmiddel (bijvoorbeeld antibiotica) ontwikkelt.

On 14-15 November 2016, the Global Health Law Groningen Research Centre has the pleasure of hosting the ‘EU-Sino Health Law Symposium’ in Groningen. This Symposium will be a joint effort of the University of Groningen (NL) and the Central South University (China). The Symposium will bring together a group of experts from China, the Netherlands and Germany to present findings and trends in international/national health law, policy and research.

The Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health will present his annual report to the General Assembly in New York on 25th of October 2016.

Call for Abstracts

On 14 September 2016, the Court in The Hague ruled that the possibility to smoke in designated smoking areas in publicly accessible places is in line with Article 8(2) of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (hereafter: FCTC). This provision states that State Parties to the FCTC shall adopt, as determined by national law, and actively promote ‘measures, providing for protection from exposure to tobacco smoke in indoor workplaces, public transport, indoor public places and, as appropriate, other public places’. According to the Court, Article 8(2) of the FCTC lacks ‘direct effect’ in the Dutch legal order in the sense of Article 94 of the Dutch Constitution. This, contrary to the ruling of the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) on 14 October 2014, where Article 8(2) FCTC was declared to have ‘direct effect’.

The UN High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines published its report on 14 September. The Panel was established on 19 November 2015 by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to “review and assess proposals and recommend solutions for remedying the policy incoherence between the justifiable rights of inventors, international human rights law, trade rules and public health in the context of health technologies”. The Panel’s report offers recommendations to ensure that new medicines to address unmet needs are developed and that these medicines are affordable to all. A recurrent theme of the Panel’s report is the need for stronger public leadership and less reliance on the market, in particular in the area of innovation.

The report titled “Quickscan Gezondheidszorg asielzoekerskinderen in Nederland” was commissioned and published by the UNICEF-led Working Group on Children in Asylum Seeker Centres (Werkgroep Kind in azc).

The issues of high priced medicines and problems with access to medicines have for many years been themes belonging to the realm of global health. We are familiar with images of people in African capitals demonstrating in the streets for access to medicines, such as those to treat HIV/AIDS. Today these images can be shot in the streets of Madrid, London, Bucharest, Athens, San Francisco and Washington DC concerning access to a number of medicines. High -income countries, including those in the European Union, are struggling with the burden of high priced medicines on their health budgets. In some cases this is now leading to rationing of proven effective, essential medications even in high-income countries.

The era of infectious diseases was meant to have ended – no longer was man to be burdened by the mortality and morbidity posed by viruses and microbes.

Aspects of International Health Law, which may be found in various documents of International Human Rights Law (HRL) such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (much of the content of which is by now considered customary law), suggest that everyone, including terrorists, are entitled to the right to medical treatment. However, does this right still stand in times of armed conflict when the rules of war come into play? Are terrorists protected under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and, if so, to what extent? While the relevant legal framework does suggest such a protection, harsh domestic counter-terrorism policies pose a significant obstacle to the realization of the right to medical treatment.