| Course | PU335 Global Health |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Right to health human rights analysis |
| Length | About 1,150 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Health Science |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PU335 Unit 2
Cholera Along the Artibonite: A Unit 2 Human Rights Analysis of Haiti's 2010 Epidemic and the Right to Health
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
PU335: Global Health
Unit 2 Human Rights Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The analysis is the student's; the events, laws and studies cited are real.
The Right to Health
The ICESCR, a United Nations treaty adopted in 1966, protects the right of every person to the best health, of body and mind, that they can reach, and Haiti and the Dominican Republic have both joined it. The United Nations committee that oversees the covenant explained, in its General Comment 14, that the right includes not only health care but the underlying determinants of health, such as safe water and adequate sanitation, and that the facilities, goods and services people rely on should exist in sufficient number (availability), be reachable and affordable (accessibility), be respectful and culturally fitting (acceptability) and meet clinical standards (quality) (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 2000). The comment also describes obligations to respect, protect and fulfill the right.
Forman et al. (2025) argue that human rights can ground global health law in equity and justice and can be used to challenge both public and private inequities, while acknowledging the political and economic obstacles to doing so. The cholera epidemic tests that claim directly.
What Happened
The epidemic began in the Artibonite region in October 2010. Piarroux et al. (2011), who investigated its origin, found that the first cases clustered near a camp of United Nations peacekeepers on a tributary of the Artibonite River, with a timing and geographic pattern pointing to that site as the source, followed by explosive spread down the river. The disease reached the capital and the rest of the country within weeks. Over the following years, cholera sickened hundreds of thousands of Haitians and killed thousands. In 2016, the United Nations Secretary-General acknowledged that the organization had not done enough about the epidemic and apologized, announcing a new approach to cholera in Haiti (United Nations, 2016).
The Right to Health Applied
Availability. Haiti had few cholera treatment facilities when the epidemic began and depended on international organizations to open treatment centers. Safe water and sanitation, which the right includes as underlying determinants, were scarce, especially in camps for people displaced by the earthquake.
Accessibility. Rural communities along the river were far from treatment, roads were poor and many families could not afford transport. Accessibility includes physical and economic access, both of which failed for the poorest.
Acceptability. Early in the epidemic, fear and rumor about the disease's origin and about treatment centers led some communities to resist facilities, a reminder that services must be trusted by the people they serve.
Quality. Treatment for cholera is simple and effective, mainly rehydration, but early in the epidemic many patients reached care too late or received it in overwhelmed facilities.
Cholera is one of the easiest diseases to treat and among the cheapest to prevent; Haiti's epidemic was a failure of water, sanitation and accountability, not of medicine.
Responsibility and Accountability
The right to health places primary obligations on states, but the Haitian state's capacity was severely damaged by the earthquake. The evidence on origin pointed to a United Nations peacekeeping site, raising the question of whether an international organization can be held to human rights obligations it did not formally sign. Families of victims and advocates pursued claims, and the organization initially asserted legal immunity. Advocates argued that immunity was never meant to shield an organization from responsibility for a disease its own personnel introduced, and that the absence of any forum to hear the claims was itself a rights failure. Even sympathetic observers inside the system criticized the organization's stance before the 2016 change of position. The 2016 apology and a fund for cholera response were a partial answer; the fund raised far less than planned. From a human rights perspective, the episode shows the weakness of accountability when the actor responsible is an international body rather than a state.
The Dominican Republic's Experience
Cholera crossed into the Dominican Republic within weeks. The Dominican Republic had stronger water and sanitation systems, more functioning health facilities and a less damaged government, and its outbreak was much smaller, though cases appeared among both Dominicans and Haitian migrants. The comparison illustrates General Comment 14's point that the underlying determinants are part of the right to health: the same pathogen produced very different outcomes because the conditions around it differed.
Within the Dominican Republic, Haitian migrants living in informal settlements near plantations faced worse access to water and care than many Dominicans, a reminder that the right applies to everyone in a state's territory, not only citizens.
What Human Rights Add
Human rights analysis does three things a purely technical analysis would not. It frames safe water as an entitlement rather than a charitable project. It asks who is responsible when an entitlement fails, including actors other than the state. And it draws attention to the most excluded, such as displaced people and migrants, whom national averages hide. Its limit is enforcement: rights norms gave advocates a language for demanding accountability, but they did not produce full redress.
The Lessons Still Apply
Haiti went more than three years without a confirmed cholera case before the disease reappeared in the capital in late 2022, amid gang violence, fuel shortages and the collapse of water trucking in several neighborhoods. The return showed that the underlying conditions identified in 2010 had not been fixed. Water and sanitation coverage remained low, treatment centers depended on outside funding and the most affected areas were those where armed groups blocked access for health workers. Read through General Comment 14, the second outbreak is evidence of a continuing failure to fulfill the right to health, not a new event.
The return also tested accountability again. The fund announced in 2016 had never reached its target, so the response relied on emergency appeals. Communities that had heard promises of water systems a decade earlier had reason to doubt new ones. Trust, which the acceptability standard treats as part of the right, is harder to rebuild than a treatment center.
For students of global health, the lesson is that a rights analysis does not end with an apology. It asks whether the conditions that allowed harm have changed, and on that measure the answer in Haiti remains largely no.
Conclusion
Haiti's cholera epidemic violated the right to health at every level of the AAAQ standards, through failures of water and sanitation, access to treatment, trust and timely quality care. The evidence tying its origin to a peacekeeping camp, and the long road to an apology, show both the power of human rights as a framework for accountability and the weakness of its enforcement against international actors. The smaller outbreak across the border shows how much the underlying determinants matter.
References
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (2000). General comment no. 14: The right to the highest attainable standard of health (E/C.12/2000/4). United Nations. https://www.refworld.org/legal/general/cescr/2000/en/36991
Forman, L., Abdool Karim, S., & Kolawole, O. (2025). Global health "with justice": The challenges and opportunities for human rights in global health law. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 53(S1), 18-22. https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2025.1
Piarroux, R., Barrais, R., Faucher, B., Haus, R., Piarroux, M., Gaudart, J., Magloire, R., & Raoult, D. (2011). Understanding the cholera epidemic, Haiti. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 17(7), 1161-1168. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1707.110059
United Nations. (2016, December 1). Secretary-General's remarks to the General Assembly on a new approach to address cholera in Haiti. https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2016-12-01/secretary-generals-remarks-general-assembly-new-approach-address
Reading the PU 335 Unit 2 instructions
In Unit 2 students analyze a global health problem through the right to health. The paper should explain where the right comes from in international law, what it includes and what obligations it places on states and other actors. Most prompts expect the four standards, availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality, to be tested against the facts of one event, not just defined. Students are usually asked to identify who is responsible and what accountability exists. A comparison with another country or group adds depth. The paper should end by explaining what a human rights lens adds that a technical analysis would not, and where its limits lie. Instructors expect real events, dates and sources, not hypothetical violations.
Inside the PU335 Unit 2 example
The sample opens with the covenant and General Comment 14, then Forman and colleagues' argument for global health with justice. A section on what happened draws on Piarroux and colleagues and the 2016 United Nations statement. Each of the four standards is then applied to the epidemic, leading to the highlighted line that Haiti's crisis was a failure of water, sanitation and accountability rather than medicine. The section on responsibility examines the organization's legal immunity and the underfunded response fund. The Dominican comparison shows the same pathogen producing a much smaller outbreak where water systems and government were stronger. A closing section on cholera's 2022 return argues that a rights analysis must ask whether the conditions behind the harm have changed.
PU335 Unit 2 rubric: what earns full points
Human rights analyses are typically graded on accurate legal grounding, application to the case, analysis of responsibility and quality of sources. The right should be traced to the treaty and the general comment, not described vaguely. Each standard should be applied with evidence from the case. Graders reward papers that identify non-state actors' responsibility and the gap between norms and enforcement. A comparison that shows the role of underlying determinants strengthens the analysis. The paper should be balanced, acknowledging what rights achieved as well as where they fell short. Sources should include the legal text, peer-reviewed research and official statements, all in APA 7. Clear headings for each standard make the structure easy to follow.
PU335 Unit 2 help from the desk
Human rights papers often list the four standards without showing evidence for each in the case chosen. Another common weakness is treating the state as the only responsible actor when international organizations or companies played a role. Some students write with outrage but little evidence, which weakens the argument. Others describe the law accurately but never apply it. Papers that skip enforcement and accountability miss the hardest question the unit raises. Before drafting, gather a timeline of the case with dated sources, then sort the facts under the four standards. Send the case you have chosen and the rubric, and the paper can follow that dated record.
Get a PU335 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Share the issue and the instructions with the rubric. A custom analysis applies the right to health and related law to the case. Turnaround is 24-48h, free the first time. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More PU335 papers and BS in Health Science samples
- PU335 Unit 1: Leave No One Behind Discussion Post
- PU335 Unit 3: Burden of Disease Comparison
- PU335 Unit 4: Determinants of Health Paper
- PU335 Unit 5: Governance Analysis
- PU335 Unit 6: Health Systems Comparison
- PU335 Unit 7: Ethics of Priority Setting Paper
- PU335 Unit 8: Global Health Partnerships Analysis
- PU335 Unit 9: Resource-sensitive Intervention Proposal
- PU335 Unit 10: Course Reflection
- EF205 Unit 2: Cardiovascular Response Paper
- HS499 Unit 2: Annotated Bibliography
- EF310 Unit 2: Client Screening Summary
- HS460 Unit 2: Discussion Board Post
PU335 Unit 2 questions, answered
What is the right to health?
A right recognized in international law to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
What are the AAAQ standards?
Availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality, used to judge health services under the right to health.
Can human rights hold organizations accountable?
They provide norms and advocacy routes, though enforcement is often weak.
Where can I find a free PU335 Unit 2 sample paper?
The complete PU335 Unit 2 human rights analysis is available here, applying the right to health to Haiti's 2010 cholera epidemic.
What does the PU335 Unit 2 sample say about accountability?
It argues that legal immunity and an underfunded response fund left victims without full redress, showing the weakness of enforcement against international bodies.