Luzon v. Government of Israel
Israel Supreme Court
HCJ 3071/05 (2008)

- Written by Whitney Waldenberg, JD
Facts
Israel’s National Health Insurance Law entitled all residents of Israel to become members of a health fund. The health-fund members received free or subsidized medications and health services in a so-called health basket. A professional committee met periodically to decide what medications and services were to be included in the health basket, based on a ranking of their importance. Gila Luzon and other patients (collectively, the cancer patients) (plaintiffs) were cancer patients whose medications were not included in the subsidized health basket. The cancer patients filed a petition against the government of Israel (defendant), arguing that the failure to subsidize the cost of the medications the cancer patients needed violated their constitutional rights. The cancer patients admitted that the right to health was not explicitly prescribed in any law, but they relied on Israel’s basic law, which established a right to human dignity and liberty. After the petition was filed, all but one of the medications became part of the health basket, rendering many of the claims moot. Only one medication, Erbitux, was not included. Erbitux was an innovative medication aimed at treating colon cancer, and at the time, there was no consensus on the effectiveness of the medication for saving or prolonging cancer patients’ lives.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Beinisch, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.