Filippe Vasconcellos de Freitas Guimarães Jul 23, 2017:

Well, I'm glad I didn't submit my suggestion last night. Great work, everyone.

Charles Davis Jul 22, 2017:

@Muriel It looks good to me.

Muriel Vasconcellos (asker) Jul 22, 2017:

Another occurrence In reviewing my document, I found the word also used in the beginning, as part of the history of the right to health. See if you agree with my translation:

La Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos de 1948, en su artículo 25 (5), reconoció a la salud como parte del derecho a condiciones de vida adecuadas. El derecho a la salud también fue reconocido como parte de los derechos humanos en el Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales de 1966 (6), no como simple **derecho prestacional**, sino como un derecho fundamental.

The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in its Article 25 (5), recognized health as a part of the right to adequate living conditions. The right to health was also recognized in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights of 1966 (6), not as simply **a right to a social benefit**, but as a fundamental right.

Muriel Vasconcellos (asker) Jul 22, 2017:

Thank you all for your excellent answers and this very interesting and helpful discussion. I'm so glad I asked the question. The word appears twice in my 80-page document. The first section is a discussion of international law, where I intend to use 'social benefit', and it comes back in the summary at the end, where I'm tempted to say 'entitlement'--to bring the point home.

Charles Davis Jul 22, 2017:

I freely admit I am out of my depth here We have supranational statements of fundamental human rights, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, and if a fundamental right as defined there is not enshrined as such in a national constitution, it is still a fundamental right. Though of course that is still seeing it as a matter of positive law but shifting it up a level, whereas it sounds to me as though the Colombian Constitutional Court is taking a natural law approach (though one would have to read the judgments; I could be quite wrong about that).

Those who enjoy this sort of lucubration may find Judge Zupancic's reflections on the ECHR interesting:
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/56330ad3e4b0733dcc0c84...

Ana Claudia Macoretta Jul 22, 2017:

much ink has been shed:positivism vs.iusnaturalism Well, here you pose a truly philosophical question, Charles. Some would argue that if those rights are not listed in the Constitution under the chapter titled 'fundamental rights', they are not; but if they are contemplated by the law at least they exist as rights; others would say that as fundamental rights are inherent to human nature they exist regardless of their written recognition. The problem is to determine which rights are fundamental or not. Some of them are clear (the right to life) others not so much (the right to housing). It is a tough issue!

Ana Claudia Macoretta Jul 22, 2017:

excellent references, Charles Perhaps in the last one is not totally accurate to oppose *fundamental vs prestacional* because they are not opposites in nature but *prestacional* is placed lower in the pyramid, let's say. Many fundamental rights started being once just social benefits (free education at public schools, free health care at public hospitals, etc.) then became true social rights and even later some of them upgraded to the category of fundamental rights. The whole process normally taking centuries to develop. The practical consequence in each case is that: if it is a mere social benefit the State might cancel it anytime, if it is a social right the State can only cut it down (budgetary speaking), but if it is a fundamental right it cannot disappear and everybody can ask for its protection at court.

Charles Davis Jul 22, 2017:

So the point being made here is an abstract legal one. According to my reading, in the Colombian context, to see the right to health as a "derecho prestacional" means that people have that right because it is in the Constitution, with the corollary that if it were not in the Constitution they would not have it; whereas seeing it as a "derecho fundamental" means that they have it anyway and would have it even if it were not in the Constitution.

Charles Davis Jul 22, 2017:

Derecho fundamental vs derecho prestacional It seems to be, or to have been recently, a big issue in Colombia:
http://www.anthoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti...

Charles Davis Jul 22, 2017:

Or see here "el derecho a la educación es un derecho social, esto es, un derecho prestacional por el que los poderes públicos quedan obligados a crear, ordenar, controlar y financiar un sistema público educativo".
https://books.google.es/books?id=sMLXWM2sCCUC&pg=PA128&lpg=P...

Charles Davis Jul 22, 2017:

(Contd.) Or see this quotation in a previous question:

"El acceso a la jurisdicción constitute un derecho prestacional de configuración legal, estando su ejercio y dispensación supeditados a la concurrencia de los presupuestos y requisitos que el legislador haya establecido"
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/spanish_to_english/law_general/323...

Charles Davis Jul 22, 2017:

So do I But I don't think it can be the right meaning. "Prestacional" here means "derecho prestacional": it's saying health is "un derecho humano básico y no [un derecho] meramente prestacional". "Derecho prestacional" is a legal term (used, it seems, particularly in Colombia) and it really means a social right, a right granted to people by the state, which they have by virtue of legal provision. In other words, it is a right subject to legislation. That is not, of course, the case with fundamental human rights, which are inherent to the person.

See, for example, the following abstract, from Colombia:

"El derecho a la salud se constitucionalizó de forma expresa en los artículos 44 y 49 de nuestra actual Constitución Política como un derecho inherente a la persona. Según un primigenio criterio formalista de interpretación el derecho a la salud fue considerado como un derecho meramente prestacional debido a su ubicación topográfica en dicha Constitución. De allí, y por influjo directo de las consideraciones jurisprudenciales de la Corte Constitucional, parece haberse reconocido como un derecho fundamental per se."
https://goo.gl/Dgw7iL

Joseph Tein Jul 22, 2017:

I like Filippe's version ... it's concise and captures the meaning perfectly. I would give it an Agree if I saw it posted as an answer :) ("health is a basic human right, not just a commodity" to fit more closely with how your author(s) said it)

Muriel Vasconcellos (asker) Jul 22, 2017:

Thank you both Very nice! I hope one of you posts an answer...

Filippe Vasconcellos de Freitas Guimarães Jul 22, 2017:

Commodity I agree with Joseph's suggestions, and would go one further and simply use "commodity". "Health is a right, not a commodity" is almost a set phrase (and rallying cry...)

Joseph Tein Jul 22, 2017:

Hi Muriel,

Not merely a commercial transaction? Not merely a contracted service? Or something along these lines, not necessarily trying to stick too close to the usual translations of 'prestación'.

(I happen to agree strongly with this position, btw. I think it's terrible to turn medical treatment into a for-profit commodity.)

¿Did you see this one: http://www.proz.com/kudoz/spanish_to_english/law_contracts/3... ?