Do people want health to be political?

In recent years, it has become common to hear the phrase "Health is political." Many public health professionals, activists, and academics emphasize how political systems shape health outcomes—whether through the allocation of resources, the regulation of industries, or the policies that affect access to care. And yet, for many people, the idea of politicizing health services is troubling. It begs the question: do people actually want health services and programs to be political?

From one perspective, the answer might seem clear. “Health is a political choice”. Health outcomes are always influenced by political decisions, and ignoring this reality doesn’t make it disappear. The social medicine perspective, for example, has long argued that health inequalities are driven by systemic political and economic forces. From inadequate social safety nets to structural racism, political systems create barriers to equitable healthcare. For advocates of this view, political engagement is necessary to address the root causes of poor health—meaning that, in this sense, health must be political to ensure justice.

But there is another viewpoint worth considering: many people—and even health professionals—might prefer to see health services and prevention efforts as apolitical. This is not because they are unaware of the political dynamics at play but because they believe that health services, prevention and systems should transcend politics. In moments of crisis, like a global pandemic or a natural disaster, health professionals are often expected to set aside political affiliations and focus on delivering care based on need. Humanitarian organizations, for instance, operate under the principle of neutrality, focusing on health as a basic human need that should be addressed regardless of the surrounding political context.

Then there’s also instances when health services, health guidance, health products, access, and policies are politicized. Politicized health is detached from the moorings of health evidence and commonly held values. This can fuel distrust in the entire enterprise of supporting and advancing people’s health and well-being. Moreover, when health is politicized in this way, health-related narratives can be hijacked by mis- and disinformation. Such hijacking is difficult to dislodge, because it hooks into people’s existing perceptions that health is devalued and misused for political gain and not beneficial to them.

Consider this: Ensuring that pregnant women have adequate medical care during their pregnancy and in delivery is close to universally accepted norm across the world. All countries have health systems that provide antenatal care to women. In theory, provision of such basic health services should be considered apolitical. Unfortunately, in the US, pregnancy and maternal health are politicized. The consequences are that in many US States, women and their healthcare providers have their healthcare decisions leally circumscribed. This is done to support a particular political and moral perspective on what a pregnant woman can and cannot do with her pregnancy. ?Women’s health has been politicized in the United States (ignoring, for a moment, LGBT+ rights, racism, and other structural issues, also affecting health), and thus affected their human rights.

So where does this leave us? Do people really want the health services they receive to be political, or do they long for a world where health is treated as a universal human right, separate from political battles? On the one hand, viewing health as political is necessary to confront the root causes of inequality and systemic failures and make social commitments in favor of social investment into health and wellbeing. But on the other, an apolitical stance demands that we focus on the shared human need for health and well-being, trusting that care is provided based on need, not political agendas.

“Health is political.”

“Health is a political choice.”

“Health is apolitical.”

“Health is politicized.”

... these all mean different things and relate to different domains of policymaking, decision-making, service and programme delivery, and expression of universal societal values.

We should be precise and thoughtful when operating with this language.

Ultimately, it’s not about denying the political nature of health. The way our health systems function—and who they benefit—is deeply shaped by political decisions and other structural determinants. But it’s also about recognizing that people seek health services for care and support, not for a political debate. Perhaps the real question is how we balance these perspectives, how we understand them and how we talk about them. Can we keep politics at the forefront of how we structure systems while ensuring that healthcare delivery and public health programs remain evidence-based, equitable, and human-centered?

Health policies and management of health system may never be truly apolitical, but the aspiration for health services, products and programmes to be delivered focused on human rights, equity, and evidence should guide the political decisions that influence them.