• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2019

This research examines the constitutional meaning of the right to health through reviewing the decisions of the Constitutional Court and proposed amendment of the Constitution issued by the President. This article further discusses the relationship between the right to a humane livelihood and the right to health. Health is a fundamental freedom and inalienable human right which is a prerequisite to accomplish individual's independent activity and realization of value. Thus, the government is obligated to protect and uphold the right. Article 36(3) of the Constitution delineates the government's duty to protect and fulfill the right to health. Through the interpretation of both Article 36(3) and Article 34 of the Constitution, I suggest that the right to health implies 'the right to social security for health'. The Constitutional Court has narrowly interpreted the scope of the right to a humane livelihood by defining the term as "minimum material living standards". However, it should be interpreted as 'the right to enjoy a healthy and cultural life for human dignity' and setting the level of protection is solely on the discretion of the legislative branch. Ultimately, the judicial review on the right to a humane livelihood connects with the issue of rational control for legislative discretion.