Human rights are often seen as assertions of rights, a universalization of unprescribed rights associated with humankind. Whether appreciated or criticized, human rights deserve attention to understand which human beings are referred to. Does they involve abstract humankind, the universal idea of Homo sapiens, or rather concrete humankind, socially located and historically determined, subject and object of a specific culture? Whether from the point of view of universals or from that of historicist relativism, deciding is not easy. What seems to be essential to us is examining in which conditions the right to health can raise arguments about the extension and the interpretation of human rights according to cultural and traditional politics. As Luc Ferry and Alain Renaut put the question, “What relationship is there between rights and health and the freedom of opinion, the right to leisure and the right to the freedom of association, the right to employment and the right to security?” [Luc Ferry et Alain Renaut. 1985. Philosophie politique, tome 3, Des droits de l’homme à l’idée républicaine, Paris, Puf, 1985. (our translation)] The distinction and the categorization of rights related to human rights do not seem evident in the southern countries where states and governments, though mindful of the necessity to preserve human rights, cannot ensure the least protection for their populations. Which should be preferred—the right to health or the right to opinions? Our objective in this chapter is to show how the categorization of proper scanning is problematic from the perspective of grasping human rights. On which criteria should we anchor the setting in the hierarchy of the rights tied to human rights? What is more important for the individual—health or freedom? These are some of the questions that need to be clarified concerning the republican idea within the perspective of modern political theory.