See
Kiryati, , supra note 54, para. 48. Justice Berliner based her decision also on a few statutory provisions, including the prohibition on the use of state property for private use without the government's approval, the prohibition on the provision by a private health cooperation of medical services in a public health care organization; and the prohibition on the provision on health services by a physician in a public health care organization except for services given within his employment. See
Kiryati, , supra note 54, at paras. 26–27. A later petition questioned the legality of PHS in publicly funded hospitals which provide public services, but are operated by private companies and are not government hospitals in the same way the hospitals addressed in
Kiryati were. The HCJ rejected the petition, basing its reasoning mostly on the laches doctrine, holding that the petition was submitted with significant delay, but also distinguishing the case from
Kiryati based on the difference between the types of hospitals involved. Addressing the question of whether because of the nature of the rights involved the HCJ should consider the merits of the case notwithstanding the delay, the Court noted that even if the right to equal access to health care is to be recognized as derivative of the constitutional right to human dignity, then the right is at the periphery and not at the core of the constitutional right. HCJ 2114/12
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel vs. Government of Israel, The Judicial Authority Website [
2012] (Isr.) (Hebrew).
Google Scholar