The social health service in Peru: neither discriminatory nor unconstitutional

The purpose of this article is to answer the following questions: a) Is the regulation of the peruvian rural and urban marginal health service (SERUMS) constitutional? b) In a social democracy under the rule of law such as Peru’s, is it possible to make a social service such as SERUMS mandatory for health professionals?; and c) Should SERUMS be reformed? In this sense, this article determines the content and limits of the right to freedom of work and health of the people, concluding that a public health program does not affect the freedom of work as long as: a) it is a service that pursues a constitutionally relevant purpose, which is to contribute to achieving equitable access to health services for all people (articles 7o. and 9o. of the Constitution); b) the normative provisions of the SERUMS Law have proven to be relevant to increase health coverage in rural and marginal urban sectors, and c) restrictions on the freedom of work of medical personnel can be legally justified on the basis of the Principle of Solidarity that illuminates the Social Rule of Law.