The major ideals of human rights and ethics face challenges in today’s world due to political and social tensions. The recent refusal of healthcare to Bangladeshi nationals by Jitendra Narayan Ray Hospital in Kolkata and ILS Hospital in Agartala has ignited controversy, raising questions about the universality of healthcare and its ethical responsibilities. The hospitals defended their actions as symbolic protests against perceived anti-India sentiment in Bangladesh, which includes disrespect toward India’s national flag and atrocities against Hindu minorities.
While hospital authorities framed the move as a sign of national pride, critics say that it is a reversal of the very essence of health care as an impartial, apolitical service. The hierarchy of health care over nationalist sentiments punctuates a prevailing discord between political ideologies and human rights.
The right to healthcare is universal and should rise above boundaries and politics since it is based on the inherent dignity of every human being. Exclusionary practices do not only undermine global health equity, they also compromise the ethical foundations of medical care, thus creating a bigger debate on the role of neutrality in healthcare amidst geopolitical struggles.
Healthcare as a Fundamental Right
Healthcare is widely acknowledged as one of one’s fundamental human rights. The threshold of medical care must therefore become universal to all, regardless of nationality, religion, or political affiliation. This principle is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The World Health Organization (WHO) underscores that equal access to healthcare is central to human dignity and welfare, insisting that no geopolitical conflicts or discriminatory practices should hinder this right.
India’s refusal to provide healthcare to the nationals of Bangladesh poses serious legal and moral issues. If escalated, it could establish a significant legal precedent under international human rights law. A ruling against India by an international body such as the UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR) would reinforce the concept of extraterritorial obligations in health rights. This principle, supported by the Maastricht Principles, mandates states to uphold healthcare rights for non-citizens within their jurisdiction, emphasizing that healthcare should transcend borders and political differences.
Such a decision could transform international healthcare law; compelling states to adopt inclusive policies aligned with global human rights standards. It would send a powerful message against exclusionary practices, affirming that the universality of healthcare must prevail over nationalistic and political considerations.
In India, the Constitution offers robust guarantees that can be used to challenge discriminatory healthcare practices. Article 14 of the Constitution ensures “equality before the law“ and “equal protection of the laws“ within Indian territory. This fundamental right is critical in evaluating healthcare access and arguing against denial based on nationality or immigration status. Article 15 further prohibits unfounded discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, providing a robust ground for challenging practices that that excludes individuals from essential services like healthcare.
A critique may also follow as the systematic exclusion of non-citizens from basic rights. Although the Constitution guarantees certain rights primarily for citizens, Articles 14 and 21 (“right to life and personal liberty”) are universal within the scope of all persons, including non-citizens. The right to life under Article 21 has been interpreted expansively by Indian courts to include the right to health, underscoring the government’s obligation to ensure that no person, citizen or otherwise is deprived of access to life-saving medical care.
The Hippocratic Oath, which is the cornerstone of medical ethics, mandates healthcare providers to place the interests of their patients above all else, without prejudice. It further affirms that the sanctity of human life must take precedence above national or political boundaries. Denial of access to essential care based on one’s nationality violates these ethical principles and further fractures the common bond of trust that has to exist between the health system and society to serve as an indiscriminate provider.
Healthcare must transcend walls of oppression or boundaries built on political will or geography, focusing instead on the shared responsibility of humanity to protect life. An inclusive and non-discriminatory policy will guarantee health equity all over the world, ensure human dignity, and afford the focused intent to working together toward progress.
Ethical Implications and Impacts
Denying healthcare to patients based on nationality raises profound ethical concerns, threatening the trust and neutrality that underpin medical services. Healthcare facilities, traditionally sanctuaries for the needy, should prioritize medical necessity over political or social pressures. The recent refusal of hospitals in India to treat Bangladeshi patients threatens to set a harmful precedent for ethical and humanitarian concerns.
For decades, Bangladeshi nationals have relied on India, especially Kolkata and Delhi, for cases of cancer, heart diseases, and organ transplant as their home country could not afford sophisticated treatment methods. This established practice has created a legitimate expectation among Bangladeshi patients that they can access India’s healthcare system. Arbitrarily withdrawing this access breaches the doctrine of legitimate expectation and risks legal challenges, as it may be seen as unfair, discriminatory, and inconsistent with international human rights commitments.
Excluding Bangladeshi patients legally and diplomatically is likely damaging to India’s reputation as a global health hub, undermining its soft power and goodwill. This dynamic erodes bilateral ties and leaves India tarnished as a champion of humanitarian values. Addressing grievances through diplomatic channels or specific regulations, rather than blanket bans, would be a more ethical and constructive approach. This ensures that hospitals remain neutral providers of care, upholding global health equity.
Doctrine of Shared Humanity
Another compelling framework of ethical consideration pertinent to this debate is the doctrine of shared humanity, underscoring the universality of human dignity and fundamental rights. This doctrine holds every man, woman, and child irrespective of nationality, race, or political affiliation should enjoy access to essential services such as healthcare as a critical aspect of their dignity. Thus, refusing medical treatment to any foreign national, like the Bangladeshi patients, contradicts this doctrine. The doctrine of shared humanity is above politics and nations, which titillate healthcare providers and policymakers to promote the interest of the larger humanity over localized and partisan interests.
Role of Governments and Civil Society and Finding a Way Forward
Governments and civil society must remain the salient player in de-escalating tensions between India and Bangladesh, to address the underlying issues of minority rights violations and anti-Indian sentiments. Open communication and dialogue must promote conflict resolution and defuse future ones. Collaborative ventures can enhance bilateral relations and lessen the degree of emotional nationalism that can shape vital sectors like health care.
Indian medical institutions, while navigating public sentiment, should uphold ethical principles by ensuring policies are patient-focused and impartial. Emotional or politically motivated actions risk compromising the compassion and neutrality central to healthcare. Establishing guidelines to separate healthcare decisions from external pressures can safeguard this integrity.
The path forward is such that it must ensure poised responses to grievances while treating healthcare as a common sanctuary to all. More collaborative ventures can provide solutions toward structural issues while establishing grounds for mutual interaction and confidence building. Together, India and Bangladesh can turn this crisis into an opportunity for reconciliation and unity.
Conclusion
In certain Indian hospitals, the refusal to treat Bangladeshi patients does highlight a growing trend of tension between ethics, nationalism, and human rights. While this may be in line with some public sentiment, it violates healthcare providers’ ethical obligation to offer service without regard to borders and politics.
This incident highlights a more complex issue in the Bangladesh health services. Despite Constitution guaranteeing the right to life, most citizens instead rely on medical facilities in India due mainly to the underperformance of the local authorities in meeting health standards in service, especially in rural and less developed areas. This situation evokes glaring insufficiencies in Bangladesh’s capability to deliver on its constitutional commitments, creating a compelling reason to engage in systemic reforms. A robust system of healthcare infrastructure must be built to deliver access to safe and quality healthcare to all citizens of the land, accordingly reducing dependence on foreign systems.
The circumstance demands India and Bangladesh to renew the vows of their commitment to healthcare as a universal right and enhance bilateral cooperation in them. Strengthening domestic healthcare systems and fostering cross-border collaboration should be a focus for healing, emphasizing the common human values of dignity and compassion while tackling the systemic challenges together.
About the author :
Chowdhury Muhammed Abdullah Miftha is an LL.M. student at the University of Dhaka and currently serves as an Apprentice Lawyer at the District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Dhaka. He has a keen academic and professional interest in criminal law and justice, striving to contribute meaningfully to this field through rigorous study and practical application.