Do Restrictive Telemedicine Regulations Stand in the Way of the Right to Health? Technological Negative Bias in Human Rights Versus Healthcare Development

Telemedicine offers a transformative approach to healthcare, enabling remote consultations and expanding access to underserved populations, especially in inaccessible and isolated regions. This article discusses the role of laws and regulations in telemedicine within a rights-based framework, to address the understaffing of medical doctors. Historically, restrictive regulations delayed the liberalisation of telemedicine until the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, however, human rights in the digital health sphere appear to be more focused on safeguards for privacy and autonomy than on mobilising government investments to facilitate access to health. The article first draws attention to the negative bias in the use of human rights in global digital health discourse, by reviewing the pessimistic framing of human rights standards, with telemedicine guidance at the World Health Organisation (WHO) framed as simply a protection against digital harms. By considering the experience of legislative action on telemedicine in Brazil, this article analyses how law can contribute to a positive environment for expanded digital healthcare coverage. It discusses the danger of placing unwarranted concerns over professional guarantees and ethical questions above access to health, despite overwhelming evidence of the benefits of telemedicine. Furthermore, digital health regulations are often seen primarily as protections against market interests – perceived as the main suppliers of digital technologies – with limited attention paid to how human rights standards could and should actively steer publicly-funded policies. This study shows that a rights discourse can also serve to support state-led policies in digital health – positioning technological advances as an ally, rather than mainly a threat, in the pursuit of universal health coverage.