Abstract

The right to health has been widely recognized in the Argentine courts, however only those who have the ability to access the justice system are able to fully enjoy that right. Therefore traditionally excluded groups, who for different reasons have not been able to make their demands heard in a judicial court, do not benefit from the recognition gained up to this point in the different judicial resolutions. Taking into account these institutionalized unequal practices, this article suggests a model for understanding the right to health truly as a right. A distinction is made between the right to health as a rule (understood as the minimum or essential core of that right) and the right to health as a principle (understood as the periphery of the right). In this way, it is shown how considering the right to health as both a rule and as a principle could offer greater equality in recognition of that right for disadvantaged groups that lack access to the justice system.