Moral Determinants of Health? How is it Different from Social Determinants of Health?

There is a viewpoint in JAMA published under the title: "The Moral Determinants of Health" a couple of weeks ago.

I went through it and don't claim to understand it fully. But because there is a draft I'm working on about health as a fundamental human right, I think I understand what the author was meaning to say.

Social Determinants of Health (SDH) are things like gender, race, caste, occupation, etc which directly influence someone's health. According to WHO:

The social determinants of health (SDH) are the conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live, and age, and the wider set of forces and systems shaping the conditions of daily life.

Where is the space for moral determinants when the definition of SDH includes a catch-all phrase "wider set of forces and systems shaping the conditions of daily life"?

I think the space is at a meta level.

Take race. Race, and racism are social determinants. But whether a society accepts racism and whether they want to change are moral determinants.

What is a society's moral stance towards the inequities within it? That is what moral determinants are.

For example, when it comes to COVID-19 and lockdown/quarantine, the social determinants are things like job security, government policy on lockdown, migrant status, etc. The moral determinant is the collective moral maturity to take into account such SDHs when doing things. Whether the government feels the need to consider daily wage workers when declaring lockdown. Whether people feel the need to pay their maids even when they can't come for work. Whether people consider it okay to isolate and discriminate against people infected with COVID. These are moral determinants.

That's why the author of the article mentions "right to health" multiple times. Right to health can be mistaken for a social determinant. It is a governance policy. A law. Something that can be included in the Constitution.

But no. Right to health is not really a social determinant. Having the right to health holds no meaning. Right to health is a moral determinant. It is only when people understand "right to health" through the moral compass within and appreciate the meaning of what it means when someone has a right to health, that right to health becomes meaningful. That is when people will become ready to make the sacrifices required to ensure health for all. Sacrifices like giving up the luxuries of capitalism, paying higher taxes, waiting for one's turn, and so on.

The reason why my post on health as a fundamental right is still pending is the same. I couldn't find a compelling reason to convey the moral argument behind right to health. It is dependent fully on whether people want to care for others or not. This is a fundamental moral argument. Should all people be equal? The proportion of people who justify inequalities in the society (either through economics, history, politics, or whatever) is the measure of how bad moral determinants of health are in that society.