05-01-202605-01-2026<p>This research article identifies and compares the jurisprudential narrative elaborated by the Colombian Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Chile in relation with the justiciability of the right to health through direct adjudication by Courts. Based on an exploratory methodology, that correlates some decisions and find common analysis points, although dissimilar constitutional design in both countries, it is possible to state some critical hypothesis. These hypotheses are related with the risks that such decisional model may generate for guarantying the concept of rights. These risks also arise in relation to the enactment of comprehensive social policies. Thus, during three main sections, the research describes a conceptual framework on the relationship between the rights to life and health; an analysis of the constitutional regulation of these rights in each system and the modifications that Court´s narrative is producing over the right and social policies concepts. Finally, corresponding final reflections states our critics on the matter.</p>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesscommon goodpublic policiesright to healthright to lifesocial rightscommon goodright to liferight to healthsocial rightspublic policiesArticle