In recent years, human rights have profoundly influenced the fields of public health and health care.[1] During the AIDS epidemic, civil libertarians turned to the language of human rights to defend persons against stigma and discrimination.[2] During the Clinton administration's effort to achieve universal access to medical insurance, advocates claimed that health care was a human right. This rhetorical device elevated health care from a market commodity to a basic entitlement. The main sources of human rights law within the United Nations system are two treaty-based schemes: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The United States has ratified the ICCPR but not the ICESCR. The rights contained in the ICCPR are principally "negative" or defensive in character, affording individuals a sphere of protection from government restraint--rights to liberty and privacy and freedom of expression and association, for example. The ICESCR forms the foundation for "positive rights," that is, those requiring affirmative duties of the state to provide services--for example, the right to social security, education, work, and to "share in scientific advancement and its benefits." Scholars have developed a sophisticated understanding of civil and political rights but have failed systematically to examine the meaning and enforcement of social and economic rights.[3] Perhaps the most important social and economic entitlement is the right to health. Article 12 of the ICESCR requires governments to recognize "the right of everyone to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health." Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) also expressly recognizes a right to health: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Considerable disagreement exists, however, as to whether "health" is a meaningful, identifiable, operational, and enforceable right, or whether it is merely aspirational or rhetorical. A right to health that is too broadly defined lacks clear content and is less likely to have a meaningful effect. For example, if health is, as suggested by WHO, "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity," then it can never be achieved.[4] Even if this definition were construed as a reasonable, as opposed to an absolute, standard, it remains difficult to implement, and is unlikely to be justiciable. Thus it is important to develop a clear definition of the human right to health that helps clarify state obligations, identify violations, and establish criteria and procedures for enforcement.[5] To achieve this goal, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR), which monitors the implementation of the ICESCR, recently issued General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health.[6] The General Comment represents the most authoritative statement on the meaning of the right to health. General Comment 14 proclaims that "health is a fundamental human right indispensable for the exercise of other human rights. Every human being is entitled to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health conducive to living a life in dignity." The right to health is not confined to health care, but embraces a wide range of socioeconomic conditions necessary for people to lead healthy lives, including the underlying determinants of health (nutrition, housing, uncontaminated drinking water, sanitation, safe workplaces, and a healthy environment). …