In this master thesis I investigate a question that is and always will be of importance: What is it that matters most? On this occasion, the way in which the question is presented is: Which of the two rights – to health and intellectual property – should be prioritized in situations where the two come into conflict with each other? I seek to make clear which interest or right should be considered most important. The question is answered by performing a normative analysis of contributions in political philosophy by John Rawls, Robert Nozick and Henry Shue. These three thinkers represent different theories on how a just society should be governed, which principles peoples should live by, and which rights are the most fundamental. The conflict of interest that is analyzed is one that arises between human beings in need of medical care, and those who invent and manufacture medications, and such hold patents on medical developments. In my thesis, I uncover what the three theories prescribe with regards to solving this conflict of interest, as well as confront the arguments with each other. Whilst the theories of Rawls and Shue push towards a prioritization of a right to health, the strong regard for property rights in Nozick leads to a different conclusion on his end. When the arguments are confronted, all three potentially lead to priority being given to promoting a human right to health. However, as can be seen in the analysis – this is a truth with certain limitations. A right to intellectual property may have further implications for a right to health than that of serving as a hinder.