Title: In Search of the Right to Health in Israeli Constitutional Law
Abstract: In 2006, Amir Israeli petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court (sitting as the High Court of Justice) contesting the decision of the Council for Cable and Satellite Broadcasting which allowed the broadcasting of the World Cup soccer games within the framework of the ‘pay-per-view’ system. He argued that the high fee demanded for watching the games caused severe damage to him and to sports fans in Israel.
The Supreme Court rejected the petition, finding that as a result of the Council’s instructions the cable and satellite companies had been required to revise their proposed pay-per-view programme and that the revised package as presented to the Court included the broadcasting of the major games (including the final), in the public commercial channels as well as a free daily magazine which covered each day’s games. Additionally, against payment of 492 NIS (New Israeli Shekel) (about $100) viewers were able to purchase a package which would allow them to view another 50 games. It was also submitted to the Supreme Court that the package’s price was later reduced and was liable to be reduced even further.
The Supreme Court thus found that the revised plan complied with the Council’s policy of guaranteeing free viewing of events of public importance, and its decision to allow the broadcasting of only the less important games for a fee, was therefore within the boundaries of its discretion. Furthermore, given the further reduction in the price of the package, the Supreme Court held that it was no longer possible to claim that severe damage was caused to the petitioner.
Less than two weeks after giving its judgment in the Israeli (World Cup) decision, the Supreme Court gave a judgment in the case of Victoria (Vicky) Israeli. Ms Israeli was in the process of losing her hearing, but this was a process that could be reversed were she to undergo a cochlear implant operation. This operation was included in the Health Services Basket (HSB) as anchored in the Israeli National Health Insurance Law (NHIL) but entitlement to the operation under the law was conditional upon a self-contribution of 70 per cent, which, in this case, amounted to 70,000 NIS (about $15,500). This sum was far in excess of the economic capacity of the petitioner, a teacher and single mother, and she based her petition not only on the right to health but also on the right to equality, the latter having been recognised as part of the right to human dignity under Israel’s Basic Law: Human Liberty and Dignity. Although the Court expressed concern as to how a 70 per cent self-contribution could be regarded a ‘contribution’, it refused to intervene, arguing that the question of deciding on the services to be included in the HSB and under what conditions, as well as the establishing of priorities, rests first and foremost with the Committee authorised to recommend the scope of the HSB and to establish priorities, and ultimately with the Government. The Supreme Court held that the need to set priorities is unavoidable given the rapid technological and medical changes on the one hand, and the high costs of technologies and medications on the other.
These two Israeli judgments, Israeli (World Cup) and Israeli (Cochlear Implant) tell a more general story about Israeli constitutional law. In both cases a complex process of litigation and advocacy produced changes that lowered the access threshold to public resources. But whereas in the Israeli (World Cup) case the petition was rejected by the Supreme Court only after it was determined that access to the core of the resource – in that case the major games – would be free and that payment for access to further games would not be excessive, in the Israeli (Cochlear Implant) case the Supreme Court rejected the petition before the governmental intervention. This meant the retention of a situation in which access to an essential medical operation was denied by reason of the applicant’s inability to pay a prohibitively high fee.
Publication Year: 2014
Publication Date: 2014-09-12
Language: en
Type: book-chapter
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 3
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot