However, over several years TAC’s experience demonstrated that these rights, when seriously pursued, cannot be narrowly contained or their violation assigned solely to profiteering from medicines.
Their protection and promotion has implications for the conduct of government in most spheres of life.
has shifted the debate firmly to one of fundamental human rights and utilized the human rights machinery established by the same government to force its hand on the ARV issue.”In earlier chapters of this article I have argued that a Framework Convention on Global Health (FCGH) must be located in a human rights framework, and that the impetus for it needs to come first and foremost from communities and people that are being denied health care.
I also argued that a push for the prioritization of health in national politics would be assisted if there was an international framework that set out global standards and national duties in relation to health.
It argued that intellectual property was not a human right, but a device granted by the state for a public purpose.
Denialism exists when governments try to create images of economic or political security that do not want to let in truths about the extent of poverty, HIV or hunger.
What Dugmore and others of his ilk miss is that TAC’s focus on the right of access to treatment (ARVs) was grounded in the reality of the AIDS epidemic, rather than public health theory.
As a result an organizational coherence began to form amongst people living with HIV.
Aided by the trade mark ‘HIV positive’ T-shirt, people with AIDS ceased being silent victims and became political agitators for their human right to treatment.