Untitled document (2)
.pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Arizona State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
MISC
Subject
Health Science
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
Pages
5
Uploaded by abimis99
The question of whether healthcare should be considered a fundamental right or a
privilege in the United States has been a longstanding and contentious issue. In this essay, we
will explore the arguments on both sides of the debate and consider the ethical, social, and
economic implications associated with each perspective. Ultimately, this discussion aims to shed
light on the complexities of the healthcare system in the United States and to encourage a
thoughtful and informed public discourse.
Healthcare as a Fundamental Right
The belief that healthcare should be recognized as a fundamental right rests on several
ethical and moral foundations. Proponents of this perspective argue that access to healthcare is
essential for the preservation of life, dignity, and the pursuit of happiness, and should, therefore,
be available to all citizens. In his foundational essay, "The Right to Health: The Moral and
Ethical Basis of the Primary Health Care," Goran Dahlgren (2007) argues that health is a
fundamental human right grounded in moral principles. In this view, the right to healthcare is
intrinsically tied to the broader principle that every individual deserves equal treatment and equal
opportunities.
Furthermore, proponents argue that recognizing healthcare as a fundamental right is in
line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which asserts that "everyone has the right
to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family"
(United Nations, 1948). This international perspective aligns with the idea that access to
healthcare is not a privilege but a fundamental entitlement, which the United States should adopt
to uphold its global commitments.
Healthcare as a Privilege
On the other hand, opponents of the idea that healthcare is a fundamental right argue that
it should be viewed as a privilege, not unlike other goods and services in a market economy.
They contend that a purely government-funded healthcare system may lead to inefficiencies, lack
of innovation, and overuse of resources. In their view, the free market encourages competition,
innovation, and efficiency, which can lead to improved healthcare services for those who can
afford them.
The libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick (1974) makes the case for healthcare as a
privilege in his book "Anarchy, State, and Utopia." He posits that an individual's rights to life,
liberty, and property extend to the fruits of their labor, including the resources they allocate to
their healthcare. From this perspective, healthcare can be considered a privilege that individuals
secure through their own efforts and financial means.
Economic and Social Considerations
The debate over healthcare as a right or privilege is not merely an abstract ethical
argument; it also has significant economic and social implications.
Proponents of healthcare as a right argue that the existing system in the United States,
which relies heavily on private insurance, leaves many individuals without adequate healthcare.
The lack of universal coverage results in health disparities, with lower-income and minority
populations often facing worse health outcomes. Advocates for healthcare as a right emphasize
that a universal system can promote greater equity and accessibility, reducing these disparities.
However, opponents argue that transitioning to a government-funded, universal
healthcare system would come with substantial costs. They point to the potential burden on
taxpayers and the potential for long waiting lists and rationing of care. Additionally, some argue
that competition and private investment drive medical innovation and that a purely
government-controlled system might stifle progress.
Conclusion
The question of whether healthcare should be considered a right or a privilege is a
complex and multifaceted issue, encompassing ethical, economic, and social dimensions.
Proponents of healthcare as a right argue that it is a fundamental human entitlement, grounded in
principles of dignity, equality, and global human rights agreements. They assert that a universal
healthcare system can lead to greater equity and improved healthcare outcomes for all citizens.
Conversely, opponents contend that healthcare is more effectively provided through the free
market, where competition and innovation drive efficiency and quality.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help