Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T17:38:00.896Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jonathan Mann's Legacy to the 21st Century: The Human Rights Imperative for Public Health

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Stephen P. Marks
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Professor Gostin is a leading authority on health law, whose writing and teaching are among the most authoritative in the United States, as exemplified by his recent work, Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint. Gostin's article in this issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics pays homage to Jonathan Mann (1947-1998) by expressing the debt he feels toward this extraordinary doctor and public health official with whom he had collaborated on several projects.

As many will remember, Mann held high-level positions at the Centers for Disease Control and worked on AIDS research in Central Africa before setting up the World Health Organization's Global Programme on AIDS, which he ran from 1986 to 1990. Thanks to his profound commitment and consummate communication skills, he achieved the unprecedented feat of raising the budget within two years to almost $100 million from the initial set-up of “himself, a secretary, and one typewriter,” as described by Daniel Tarantola.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , Summer 2001 , pp. 131 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Gostin, L.O., Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint (New York: University of California Press and the Milbank Memorial Fund, 2000).Google Scholar
Quoted in Schoofs, M., “Body & Soul Remembering AIDS Pioneer Jonathan Mann,” The Village Voice, Sept. 9–15, 1998.Google Scholar
Cameron, E., “The Deafening Silence of AIDS,” Health and Human Rights, 5 (2000): 9.Google Scholar
Gostin, supra note 1, at 107–09.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Mann, J., “Medicine and Public Health, Ethics and Human Rights,” Hastings Center Report, 27, no. 3 (1997):6–13, reprinted in Mann, J. et al., Health and Human Rights: A Reader (New York: Routledge, 1999): at 444.Google Scholar
Id. at 448.Google Scholar
Id. at 448–49.Google Scholar
A useful collection of these standards, which vary in the extent to which they genuinely incorporate a human rights framework, may be found in Amnesty International, Ethical Codes and Declarations Relevant to the Health Professions: An Amnesty International Compilation of Selected Ethical Texts, 3rd ed. (London: Amnesty International, 1994).Google Scholar
UNESCO unanimously adopted the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights at the twenty-ninth session of UNESCO's General Conference on November 11, 1997. At its thirtieth session, on November 16, 1999, UNESCO's General Conference endorsed the “Guidelines for the Implementation of the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights.”.Google Scholar
American Public Health Association, “Principles on Public Health and Human Rights,” available at <http://www.apha.org/sections/newsletters/maternalhealthwinter2001.htm#humanrights>..>Google Scholar
The Global Assembly on Advancing the Human Right to Health, Iowa City Appeal on Advancing the Human Right to Health, available at <http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/fxbcenter/Iowa_City_appeal.pdf>..>Google Scholar
In the landmark case of Nicolas Toonan v. Australia, the Human Rights Committee was willing to agree that the criminalization of sexual contact between men in the Tasmanian Criminal Code violated the right to privacy protected by article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but not freedom from discrimination under article 26. See Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 488/1992: Australia. 04/04/94. CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992.Google Scholar
Afghanistan, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo (Democratic Republic), Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Korea, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia (Federal Republic), Zambia, and Zimbabwe.Google Scholar
Mann, supra note 6, at 444–46.Google Scholar
Id. at 447.Google Scholar
Tavani, H.T., Public Health Ethics: A Bibliography (Boston: Harvard Education and Research Center, 2001).Google Scholar
The mandate of the Commission on Human Rights, created after the United Nations Charter, included “formulation of an international bill of rights.” GA resolution 43 (I), E/RES/9 (II) of June 21, 1946. That the United Nations considers the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the two covenants, along with the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, as constituting “the international bill of human rights” is clear from its own publication, The International Bill of Human Rights (DPI/925, 1988), updated since then. Currently, Fact Sheet No. 2 (Rev. 1) opens with this description: “The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols.”.Google Scholar
Shelton, D., “The Promise of Regional Human Rights Systems,” in Weston, B.H. and Marks, S.P., eds., The Future of International Human Rights: Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Ardsley, New York: Transnational, 2000): At 351–98.Google Scholar
Marks, S.P., “Principles and Norms of Human Rights Applicable in Emergency Situations: Underdevelopment, Catastrophes and Armed Conflicts,” in Vasak, K. and Alston, P., eds., The International Dimensions of Human Rights (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1982): 175–212.Google Scholar
See for example, Marks, S.P., “The United Nations and Human Rights: The Promise of Multilateral Diplomacy and Action,” in Weston and Marks, supra note 19, at 349–50.Google Scholar
United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2000 (Cary, North Carolina: Oxford University Press, 2000): at 93.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Gostin, L. and Mann, J., “Toward the Development of a Human Rights Impact Assessment for the Formulation and Evaluation of Public Health Policies,” Health and Human Rights, I, no. 1 (1994), reprinted in Mann, J. et al., Health and Human Rights: A Reader (New York: Routledge, 1999): 54–71.Google Scholar
There is a growing literature on the application of human rights to health policy, including the World Health Organization's brochure, A Human Rights Approach to Tuberculosis. See also Gruskin, S. and Tarantola, D., “Health and Human Rights,” in Detels, R. and Beaglehole, R., eds., Oxford Textbook of Public Health (New York: Oxford University Press, forthcoming), manuscript available at <http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/fxbcenter/working_papers.htm>..>Google Scholar
Mann, supra note 6, at 452.Google Scholar
Id. at 452.Google Scholar