Judgment T-760/08 on the Right to Health - - health care for every baby during his or her first year of life—art. 50, Political Constitution). Other obligations of programmatic character derived from a fundamental right are carried out progressively, because of the complexity of the actions and resources required to guarantee the effective enjoyment of these protective aspects of the right.” (p 5, #3.3.6.) Constitutional court precedent delineating standards health services essential for a “life of dignity:” - “As the fundamental right to health is limited, the benefits plan need not be infinite but can be circumscribed to cover the health needs and priorities determined by the competent authorities in light of the efficient use of scarce resources. Consequently, the Constitutional court has on numerous occasions denied services solicited through tutelas. For example, the Court has denied cosmetic services. Although obesity can in the long run have consequences for the health of a person, every individual has the obligation of taking care of his own health and therefore trying to prevent the diseases that arise from being overweight. Only when obesity reaches a level where it poses definite and potentially irreversible dangers to a person’s life and personal integrity does the prescribed surgery acquire constitutional relevance which has led to tutelas being conceded. The same applies to dental care, as healthy and complete teeth are desirable but are far from necessary to preserve the life or personal integrity of a person or to permit a life of dignity. The Court has even agreed that the benefits plan can exclude fertility treatments. (p. 7 # 3.5.1) - Other examples of cases in which treatments and services have been denied include eyeglasses and refractive eye surgery, cosmetic treatments, fertility treatments, alcoholic rehabilitation/detoxification, prostheses, gastric bypass surgery, dental services, certain allergy treatments. (p. 8 # 3.5.2) - Examples of situations where court found state did have an obligation to ensure coverage: bone marrow transplant and treatment for hemophilia (p. 19 #6.1.2.1.2) Expert opinions regarding urgency of service and whether essential to protect right to dignified life: - “The scientific opinion of the physician is the main criterion to determine whether a health service is required, but is not the exclusive criterion. In the Health System, the person responsible for deciding when someone requires a health service is the physician, as the physician is able to decide based on scientific criteria and because he knows the patient. Constitutional jurisprudence has held that the relevant opinion to be used is that of the physician attached to the entity responsible for ensuring the provision of the service. Therefore, in principle, the protection of tutela will often be denied when it is invoked without such an opinion. Constitutional jurisprudence has protected the right to health through the tutela when the service is required according to the