| Course | DPH 820 Public Health Policy and Advocacy |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 2 |
| Paper type | Right to health framework paper |
| Length | About 1,169 words, 7 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Public Health |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for DPH 820 Module 2
A Right, Not a Preference: Applying the Right to Health to a Flavored Tobacco Ordinance
Student Name
Doctor of Public Health Program, Aspen University
DPH 820: Public Health Policy and Advocacy
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
A Right, Not a Preference: Applying the Right to Health to a Flavored Tobacco Ordinance
Public health arguments usually rest on numbers: prevalence, risk and cost. A rights framework adds a different claim, that governments owe people the conditions for health and must not allow those conditions to be undermined. This paper applies the right to health to a composite city's proposed ordinance ending the sale of flavored tobacco products, and asks how the framework changes the advocacy case.
Health as a Human Right
The right to the highest attainable standard of health appears in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and is interpreted in a general comment by the treaty committee. Gruskin et al. (2007) trace how health and human rights moved from separate fields into a shared practice that asks both what harms health and who is accountable for it.
What the Right Contains
The general comment names four elements. Health facilities, goods and services must be available in sufficient quantity, accessible without discrimination, acceptable in cultural and ethical terms and of good quality. The right also covers underlying determinants such as safe environments and freedom from harmful exposures, which is where tobacco control fits (Gruskin et al., 2007).
Applying Rights Principles
The table applies core rights principles to the ordinance.
| Principle | Question it raises | Application to the ordinance |
|---|---|---|
| Nondiscrimination | Are some groups exposed to more harm? | Menthol marketing has been concentrated in Black neighborhoods; the ordinance includes menthol |
| Participation | Do affected people shape the decision? | Youth and residents of high-density retail areas join the coalition's steering group |
| Accountability | Who answers if the harm continues? | Council adopts compliance reporting and a public evaluation |
| Progressive realization | Is the state moving toward the right over time? | Ordinance builds on earlier age limits and retail licensing |
| Protection from third parties | Does the state restrain harmful private actors? | Restricting sale of products designed to attract youth |
Duties to Respect, Protect and Fulfill
Rights frameworks describe three duties. Governments must respect health by not harming it directly, protect it by restraining third parties who would harm it and fulfill it by taking positive steps. A flavored tobacco ordinance falls chiefly under the duty to protect: it restrains a commercial practice that increases youth initiation. Cessation services funded alongside it help fulfill the right.
Equity and Menthol
Menthol cigarettes have been marketed heavily in Black communities for decades, through advertising, pricing and store placement. Restrictions that exempt menthol leave that pattern intact. A national restriction on other cigarette flavors reduced adolescent smoking, yet some youth shifted toward menthol products that remained on sale (Courtemanche et al., 2017). The nondiscrimination principle therefore argues for including menthol.
Children's Rights
The Convention on the Rights of the Child adds a specific duty to protect children's health. Because about 81% of young people who had used tobacco said their first product was flavored (Ambrose et al., 2015), flavors function as a starter mechanism aimed at an age group the law treats as needing special protection. This strengthens the rights claim beyond general consumer safety.
Tensions With Commercial Freedom
Opponents argue that adults have a right to choose legal products and that retailers have a right to trade. A rights analysis does not dismiss these claims. It weighs them against the right to health, asks whether the restriction is necessary and proportionate and considers less restrictive alternatives. Evidence that partial restrictions leave gaps supports the necessity of a comprehensive rule.
Participation in Practice
Participation means more than holding a hearing. Young people who have used flavored products, parents and residents near dense retail clusters will help set priorities, review messages and decide how the campaign responds to opponents. Participation also covers retailers, who deserve notice, a transition period and a clear explanation of enforcement. Meetings will be held in neighborhoods most affected, at times residents choose, with interpretation provided.
Accountability Mechanisms
Accountability requires information. The ordinance will require the health department to publish annual compliance results by neighborhood and repeat the youth survey on schedule. Evaluation in New York City linked compliance checks and survey data to show lower youth use after a sales restriction (Farley & Johns, 2017). Public reporting lets residents see whether the promise was kept.
How the Framework Shapes the Ask
A rights framework moves the ask from reducing a behavior to removing a harmful exposure that the city has a duty to restrain. It also adds conditions: include menthol, enforce against retailers rather than youth, fund cessation support and report results publicly. These conditions turn an abstract right into specific ordinance language.
Limits of the Framework
Rights language can seem remote to council members focused on local budgets and businesses. It is most persuasive when paired with local data and stories from residents. Rights frameworks also cannot resolve every trade-off; they structure the argument rather than settle it. Advocates should also avoid using rights language to dismiss opponents, since that shuts down the deliberation rights frameworks value.
Using the Framework With Partners
Coalition partners from faith communities and civil rights organizations often speak the language of rights and justice more readily than the language of risk. Offering the framework to them, with the four elements and three duties spelled out, gives each partner a way to explain the ordinance to its own members.
Rights and Evidence Together
A rights claim does not replace evidence; it tells advocates which evidence matters most. Data on who is exposed to flavored products, broken down by neighborhood, age and race, become central because the right to health turns on nondiscrimination. The campaign will therefore ask the health department to publish retailer density and youth use figures by neighborhood.
Remedies and Redress
Rights imply remedies. For this ordinance, remedies include a way for residents to report illegal sales, a duty on the city to respond within a set time and public reporting of enforcement actions. Without these, rights language risks becoming rhetoric that promises protection without delivering it.
Obligations Beyond the City
The city cannot control online sales or products crossing from neighboring towns. The right to health places parallel duties on state and federal governments, so the campaign will also ask state legislators to adopt a statewide standard, making the local ordinance one step in a wider effort rather than an isolated rule.
Rights Language for Council Members
Council members respond to local values more than treaty language. The framework will therefore be translated into plain terms: every child in the city deserves the same protection, the city has a duty to act when companies target young people and residents deserve to know whether the law is working.
Conclusion
The right to health gives the flavored tobacco campaign a stronger foundation than preference or risk alone. It frames the ordinance as the city's duty to protect children from a commercial harm, highlights the equity case for including menthol and adds participation and accountability to the policy. Applied carefully, the framework makes the ask both principled and specific.
References
Ambrose, B. K., Day, H. R., Rostron, B., Conway, K. P., Borek, N., Hyland, A., & Villanti, A. C. (2015). Flavored tobacco product use among US youth aged 12-17 years, 2013-2014. JAMA, 314(17), 1871-1873. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.13802
Courtemanche, C. J., Palmer, M. K., & Pesko, M. F. (2017). Influence of the flavored cigarette ban on adolescent tobacco use. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 52(5), e139-e146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.11.019
Farley, S. M., & Johns, M. (2017). New York City flavoured tobacco product sales ban evaluation. Tobacco Control, 26(1), 78-84. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052418
Gruskin, S., Mills, E. J., & Tarantola, D. (2007). History, principles, and practice of health and human rights. The Lancet, 370(9585), 449-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61200-8
DPH 820 Module 2 instructions, in plain terms
Frameworks for the right to health appear in Aspen's catalog description of DPH 820, and because the second module's instructions are not public, this example puts one such framework to work. Framework papers usually ask you to explain the framework's origins and elements, apply it to a specific issue and show what it adds to ordinary evidence-based arguments. Name the core elements before applying them. Use a table to apply principles consistently. Distinguish the duties to respect, protect and fulfill. Take opposing rights claims seriously. Explain how the framework changes the policy you will ask for, not only the language you use. Keep the treaty history short and spend your words on application.
Inside the DPH 820 Module 2 example
After an opening on why rights language matters, the example traces health as a human right and lists its four elements. A three-column table then applies five rights principles to the ordinance. Headings on state duties, equity and menthol, children's rights and commercial freedom follow, with sections on participation, accountability and how the framework shapes the ask. Limits of the framework and its use with partners come next, then rights and evidence together, remedies, obligations beyond the city and plain rights language for council members. A margin note explains why the elements are named before they are applied. The conclusion returns to the ordinance. The table rows follow the order of the later headings, so each principle is introduced once and then developed.
DPH 820 Module 2 rubric: what earns full marks
Graders of rights framework papers look for accurate description of the framework, faithful application, recognition of competing claims and a clear link to policy. Its APA references include Gruskin and colleagues on health and human rights, Ambrose and colleagues on first tobacco products, Courtemanche and colleagues on menthol substitution and Farley and Johns on New York City's restriction. The principles table makes application consistent. Equity analysis of menthol marketing is specific. Tensions with commercial freedom are weighed rather than waved away. Remedies turn principle into enforceable steps, which instructors reward. Instructors also notice when a paper shows how rights language will be translated for local officials, as this one does in its final sections.
Common DPH 820 Module 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Students often cite the right to health in a sentence and then argue from risk alone. Others treat opposing claims as illegitimate. Explain each element of the framework. Apply every principle to your issue. Show which duty your policy fulfills. Weigh proportionality honestly. Add remedies. If treaty language feels remote, our tutors can help you translate it into terms a city council would use. End by stating how the framework changed your ask, such as adding menthol or public reporting. Keep quotations from treaties short; one sentence from the general comment is usually enough. Ask a classmate whether your ask changed because of the framework, and if the answer is no, revisit your application.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More DPH 820 and Doctor of Public Health sample papers
- DPH 820 Module 1: Advocacy Roles in Public Health
- DPH 820 Module 3: Consumer Power and Community Voice
- DPH 820 Module 4: Framing a Public Health Issue
- DPH 820 Module 5: Stakeholders, Power and Politics
- DPH 820 Module 6: An Advocacy Plan With Target and Ask
- DPH 820 Module 7: Testimony to a City Council
- DPH 820 Module 8: Funding and Sustaining a Policy
- DPH 810 Module 8: Doctoral Project Topic and Committee
- DPH 801 Module 8: Practical Immersion Reflection
- DPH 870 Module 5: Critical Appraisal of Key Studies
- DPH 850 Module 1: Informatics Frameworks for Public Health
DPH 820 Module 2 questions, answered
What does DPH 820 Module 2 usually ask for?
Aspen's DPH 820 covers frameworks for the right to health, so applying such a framework to a policy issue is a typical assignment. Confirm with your classroom prompt.
What are the elements of the right to health?
Availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality of health facilities, goods and services, along with underlying determinants of health.
Why include menthol in a flavor ban?
Menthol marketing has targeted specific communities, and exempting it leaves an inequitable exposure in place.
Where can I find a free DPH 820 Module 2 sample paper?
You can read the right to health paper above, together with its table applying five rights principles to a flavored tobacco ordinance.
How is the right to health applied in DPH 820 Module 2?
By naming its elements, applying principles such as nondiscrimination, participation and accountability to a specific policy and showing which state duty the policy fulfills.