Vital needs, human rights, health care law.

Ethics and law are actually dependent and closely interacting, but also in some measure autonomous disciplines. Their balanced interaction is important for the attainment of a common aim and purpose: a good and just society. We now tend to agree that some but not all human rights should be supported by legislation. Some human rights are rooted in vital needs: the denial of a vital need causes death or serious disability. Rights rooted in needs recognized as vital have an exceptional long moral foundation. But "NN has a right to x" can be understood in two ways: either as a right to seek fulfillment of the need with the means and money at his disposal, or as a right to obtain fulfillment of the need. Article 25 of the U.N. declaration of human rights recognizes the right to health care as a human right. Clearly, need for health care in cases of serious illness should be understood in sense: as vital need generating not only (in sense 1)" a weak right to seek, but (in sense 2) a strong right to obtain fulfillment. This amounts to a powerful moral argument for the use of legislation to establish equal access for all to (at least) "basic" health care. Even if this is "no more" than a moral argument, it does have the advantage over legislation that the validity of a moral argument is not restricted by national borders.