[Palliative care regulation and assisted death]. / Regulación de los cuidados paliativos y muerte asistida.

This article analyzes the Mexican regulation on palliative care and its relationship with the public debate on assisted death or suicide. This paper focuses on the rights that people with incurable diseases have, given the current contents of the General Health Statute and other applicable rules. Its main purpose is to activate the public debate on these matters.

[Constitutional analysis of Mexican Official Norm NOM-174-SSA1-1998 for the handling of obesity]. / Análisis Constitucional de la Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-174-SSA1-1998, Para el Manejo Integral de la Obesidad.

The First Chamber of the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice decided, by a majority of four votes, on a case where it had to be evaluated if some articles of a Mexican Official Norm (NOM) on obesity violated human rights. The majority in the chamber concluded that the restrictions went against Medics' prescribing or therapeutic rights, and therefore their freedom to work. Justice Cossío Díaz voted against the judgment and wrote a separate opinion where he holds, first of all, that the prescribing right works as a guideline for the medical profession and is not an essential element of the freedom to work. Secondly, he points out that the freedom to work is not an absolute right, for it has certain limits permitted by the Constitution. Consequently, experts' opinions should have been consulted for them to be able to determine if the NOM´s requirements were in accordance with the Constitution. Finally, he considers that the judgment should have introduced a balancing test between freedom to work and the patient's health rights, since this last-mentioned right was what the NOM intended to protect.

[Epilepsy as a cause of removal from the Armed Forces]. / La epilepsia como causa de inutilidad en las Fuerzas Armadas.

Recently, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice decided two important cases where the Ministers were urged to evaluate whether a provision of the Social Security Institute for the Mexican Armed Forces Statute making"epilepsy and other forms of seizures or equivalents" a cause of removal from the Army on the basis of "uselessness in the service" violates the equality and non-discrimination principle laid down in article 1 of the Federal Constitution. Four Supreme Court Ministers declared that the provision was constitutional. Justice Minister Cossío Díaz disagreed and wrote a separate opinion where he holds that the aforementioned provision is unconstitutional, since its excessively wide and undetermined language opens the door to declarations of "uselessness for the service" without ensuring this rests in every case in a genuine incapacity to develop a job in the Army.Before reaching this conclusion Justice Minister Cossío asked for information to the National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery. It was on these basis that he sustained that the aforementioned legal provision does not satisfy an adequate means-end correlation, since it allows the Army to withdraw from service ­on the basis of "uselessness"­persons whose medical condition is sometimes episodic; others curable; others, if not curable, pharmaceutically controlled; and, in cases where it does limit the kinds of activity, that the person can develop, it does so in a way that can only be determined by an intensely individualized basis.

[The "morning after pill": the impact of the Supreme Court ruling in the medical field]. / Píldora de emergencia: las repercusiones del fallo de la Suprema Corte en el ambito médico.

This article summarizes the Court's ruling regarding the constitutionality of the Official Norm "NOM-046-SSA2-2005". Jalisco's Governor challenged the validity of the referred norm arguing that it was against articles 4, 5, 14, 16, 20, 21, 29, 31-V, 49, 73, 74, 89-I, 123, 124 y 133 of the Federal Constitution. The Supreme Court disregarded Governor's claim and determined that the members of the National Health System are obliged to offer and give the "day after pill" to sexual violation victims. According to article 5 of General Health Law, the National Health System includes private and public hospitals, whether they are local or federal. This means that all these health institutions have the obligation to observe the dispositions contained in the appealed Official Norm Given the significance of the Court's ruling in the medical sphere, in this article the most relevant issues of the Court decision and its implications are analyzed.

[Striking a balance between freedom to practice among physicians and protecting patient's health: a balance first established in the Constitution]. / De la libertad de trabajo de los médicos y la protección de la salud de los pacientes: un equilibrio trazado desde la Constitución.

The role physicians play in society is very important from different perspectives. In spite of this, their activities cannot remain outside of the legal sphere and their ensuing guidelines since physicians activities include the health and life of patients, often at risk. We describe a law put forth by Mexico's Supreme Court that includes a balance between physician's duties and safeguarding a patient's health. Following international guideliens and human right's treaties, Supreme Court magistrates analyzed the constitutionality of article 271 included in Mexico's General Health Law (Ley General de Salud). Other aspects of their analysis included attributes to grant medical degrees and the way in which certain clauses in the General Health Law are compatible with physicians' daily work and other constitutional rights.

De la libertad de trabajo de los médicos y la protección de la salud de los pacientes: un equilibrio trazado desde la Constitución / Striking a balance between freedom to practice among physicians and protecting patient's health: a balance first established in the Constitution

La función que los médicos cumplen en la sociedad es muy importante desde diversos ángulos. No obstante, las actividades que desarrollan no pueden quedar fuera del control legal en la medida en que está en juego en muchos casos la salud o incluso la vida de otras personas. Por ello, en el presente artículo se analiza a partir de una sentencia emitida por la Primera Sala de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, el equilibrio que debe existir entre el derecho al trabajo de los médicos y el derecho de las personas a ver protegida su salud, tomando como referencia el análisis que dicho tribunal hizo en la revisión de un juicio de amparo respecto a la constitucionalidad del artículo 271 de la Ley General de Salud, destacando que dicho análisis se hizo teniendo en cuenta los estándares internacionales en materia de derechos humanos existentes. Asimismo, se analizan aspectos relacionado a quiénes son las autoridades competentes par otorgar títulos académicos médicos, y cómo el referido artículo de la Ley General de Salud era compatible con otros derechos constitucionales y la labor de los médicos.

The role physicians play in society is very important from different perspectives. In spite of this, their activities cannot remain outside of the legal sphere and their ensuing guidelines since physicians activities include the health and life of patients, often at risk. We describe a law put forth by Mexico's Supreme Court that includes a balance between physician's duties and safeguarding a patient's health. Following international guideliens and human right's treaties, Supreme Court magistrates analyzed the constitutionality of article 271 included in Mexico's General Health Law (Ley General de Salud). Other aspects of their analysis included attributes to grant medical degrees and the way in which certain clauses in the General Health Law are compatible with physicians' daily work and other constitutional rights.