A Right to Healthcare?
DeHaven, C.
A Right to Healthcare in a time of Reform .
Debates about justice and fair allocation have implications for the idea of a right to healthcare. In this context a “right” is understood as an entitlement to some measure of health care; rights are contrasted with privileges, ideals, and acts of charity.
We study (4) philosophers who have debated this issue for sometime and the pros and cons as to the right of healthcare.
PROS: (Daniels) A right to healthcare with some basic or decent minimum level of treatment and care. This care is essential only for normal functioning and does not prevent people from utilizing their own resources for additional services. Proponents of a right of this description assert that each person should have equal access to an adequate (though no maximal) level or “tier” of health care for all available types of services. The distribution proceeds on the basis of need and needs are met by fair access to adequate services. Better services, such as luxury hospital rooms and expensive but optional dental work, can then be made available for purchase at personal expense by those who are able to and wish to do so. Everyone gets some essential services or deserves the same services. Furthermore, there should be some sort of active support in government. (Veatch) Defends a right even stronger than the right to a decent minimum. He proposes the distribution of health care based on the individual’s health care needs using the yardstick of an “equal right to health care.” A right to healthcare where all services are equal. No inequality based on ability to pay. Equality or nothing. Assures equal outcomes with no ability to utilize own resources.
Daniels and Veatch support the right to healthcare with a small differing of equality. Veatch defends a right even stronger than the right to a decent minimum. He proposes the distribution of healthcare based on the individual’s health care needs using “equal right to
A Right to Healthcare in a time of Reform .
Debates about justice and fair allocation have implications for the idea of a right to healthcare. In this context a “right” is understood as an entitlement to some measure of health care; rights are contrasted with privileges, ideals, and acts of charity.
We study (4) philosophers who have debated this issue for sometime and the pros and cons as to the right of healthcare.
PROS: (Daniels) A right to healthcare with some basic or decent minimum level of treatment and care. This care is essential only for normal functioning and does not prevent people from utilizing their own resources for additional services. Proponents of a right of this description assert that each person should have equal access to an adequate (though no maximal) level or “tier” of health care for all available types of services. The distribution proceeds on the basis of need and needs are met by fair access to adequate services. Better services, such as luxury hospital rooms and expensive but optional dental work, can then be made available for purchase at personal expense by those who are able to and wish to do so. Everyone gets some essential services or deserves the same services. Furthermore, there should be some sort of active support in government. (Veatch) Defends a right even stronger than the right to a decent minimum. He proposes the distribution of health care based on the individual’s health care needs using the yardstick of an “equal right to health care.” A right to healthcare where all services are equal. No inequality based on ability to pay. Equality or nothing. Assures equal outcomes with no ability to utilize own resources.
Daniels and Veatch support the right to healthcare with a small differing of equality. Veatch defends a right even stronger than the right to a decent minimum. He proposes the distribution of healthcare based on the individual’s health care needs using “equal right to
References: (Works Cited) Fein, R. 1972. On Achieving Access and Equity in Health Care. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly/Health and Society 50(4, pt.2):157-90 Gostin, L., Powers, M., Buchanan, A. 2003. Contemporary Issues in Bioethics. Justice in Access to HealthCare 2: 72-89 Daniels, N. Equity of Access to Health Care: Some Conceptual and Ethical Issues; Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. Health and Society, Vol 60, No. 1 (Winter, 1982), pp. 51-81 Davis, K. Inequality and Access to Health Care. Wiley-Blackwell .The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 2, Health, Society and the “Milbank Quarterly” Baker, L., McClellan, M., Managed Care, Health Care Quality, and Regulation. The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2, The Regulation of Managed Care Organizations and the Doctor-Patient Relationship (Jun., 2001), pp. 715-741 Light, D. From Managed Competition to Managed Cooperation: Theory and Lesson from the British Experience. Milbank Quarterly, Vol 75, No. 3, 1997 Parmet, W. Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint by Lawrence O. Gostin. Journal of Public Health Policy, Vol. 24, No. 3/4 (2003), pp.460-466 Beauchamp, T.; Walters, L. Contemporary issues in Bioethics, 6th edition, Pt. 2,Justice in Access to Health Care