Health security—Why is ‘public health’ not enough?

Abstract There is a growing tendency in global discourse to describe a health issue as a security issue. But why is this health security language and framing necessary during times of crisis? Why is the term “health security” used when perhaps simply saying “public health” would do? As reference to ‘health security’ grows in contemporary discourse, research, advocacy, and policymaking, its prominence is perhaps most consequential in public health. Existing power dynamics in global health are produced and maintained through political processes. Securitisation of health, which facilitates urgent and exceptional measures in response to an event, is a politically charged process with the tendency to further marginalise already marginalised individuals, groups, and nations. By exploring the ethical and practical consequences of a powerful actor’s move to securitise health, the essay highlights the importance of considering the perspectives and well-being of marginalised individuals, groups and nations who may be impacted by the move. The essay challenges the assumption that securitising health or framing health as a security issue necessarily leads to good outcomes. It highlights the historical roots and explores the contemporary implications of “health security”, and invites critically informed discourse on its use within global health.