Senior research associate for the American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs in Chicago, Illinois.
AMA J Ethics. 2021 Mar 1;23(3):E235-239. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2021.235.
Health equity in the United States requires elimination of differentials in access to health services according to race, ethnicity, sex, gender identity, comorbidity, or ability. To achieve health equity, governments can use a variety of tools, including civil rights legislation and constitutional jurisprudence. In the United States, 2 such examples are the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution's Equal Protection clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. While both have the capacity to reduce health disparities, in practice, neither has achieved its full potential because of how the judicial branch has interpreted and allowed these 2 laws to be enforced. How courts adjudicate health-related cases, especially those in which civil rights or other human rights legislation are at stake, is key to the successful promotion of legislative and jurisprudential approaches to motivating health equity and realizing justice for all.
美国的健康公平需要消除根据种族、民族、性别、性别认同、合并症或能力而导致的医疗服务获取方面的差异。为了实现健康公平,政府可以使用各种工具,包括民权立法和宪法判例。在美国,有两个这样的例子,即宪法第十四修正案的平等保护条款和《民权法案》第六篇。虽然这两者都有能力减少健康差距,但在实践中,由于司法部门对这两条法律的解释和执行方式,它们都没有发挥出全部潜力。法院如何裁决与健康相关的案件,特别是涉及公民权利或其他人权立法的案件,是成功推动立法和判例法方法以促进健康公平和实现所有人正义的关键。