The Ethical Issue Of Health Care As A Human Right

As Americans we should all be afforded access to healthcare. Access to healthcare is an individual right according to the human rights amendment. The human right to health guarantees a system of health protection for all. The human right to health means that everyone has the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, which includes access to all medical services, sanitation, adequate food, decent housing, healthy working conditions and a clean environment (What is the Human Right to Health and Health Care, 2015). However there are strengths and weaknesses to every healthcare system and the U.S. Healthcare system is not exempt. I plan to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the U. S. Healthcare system (What is the Human Right to Health and Health Care, 2015).

A sensitive topic in the United States today revolves around the issue of healthcare. Is health care a basic human right or is it just a privilege to those who are able to afford it? Health care in the United States is in desperate need of reform. The Affordable Care Act takes that stance that health care is in fact a basic human right and that everyone should have health insurance. When the term “basic human rights” is used, most people think of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This doesn’t necessarily mean that people should be forced to sustain others’ lives, or that they have the responsibility to make others happy because they have a “right” to pursue happiness. You are born with these basics rights that no

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” If these words are true then why should we segregate one another by a precondition such as Universal Health care? A system that should allow residents of a specific region the opportunity to have healthcare coverage. This paper argues stipulations that all residents should be given the opportunities stated in the founding documents as well as the right to suitable healthcare, economic productivity and, a base for a just nation. In 2014 according to the US Census Bureau 33 million people in the United States which equates to 10.4% did not have health insurance. Thus, possibly assisting with the inability to provide residents with lifesaving treatments and accurate care for those in dire need but were unable to receive certain previsions due to not having health care.

One of the great hypocrisies of American culture is found in its health care system. The United States claims in its Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and that all of these men have the inalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Yet this is the same country that allows over 120 people to die each day because they are uninsured. How can this nation claim that all are created equal and have a right to life when they deny healthcare to those who cannot afford it? This issue has come on the scene relatively soon, having only truly been discussed beginning in the early 20th century. Since that time, a fear of socialism stemming from tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union throughout the century has placed a stigma on the concept of universal health care because it is similar to the Soviet’s socialized medicine. In recent years, President Obama made great strides toward universal health care by passing the Affordable Care Act, but some would argue that while America is on the right track, more can be done to care for the nation’s poor. Others argue that the economic impact of such policies could cause problems for America. Though creating a universal health care system has complex logistical and economic consequences, health care is an internationally acknowledged human right and should not be denied to the American people.

The Affordable Care Act which is also known as Obamacare and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was signed into law on March 23, 2010 and it has not been without its share of problems, debates and controversies. One of the main points of contention with the PPACA is the individual mandate. This paper will look at the worldviews that are involved in the individual mandate, the worldviews of those that oppose the mandate, the roles and limits of the government’s side of the mandate issue and the conflicting views and ideas that have come about. The individual mandate “requires that most Americans obtain and maintain health insurance, or an exemption, each month or pay a tax penalty” . The whole purpose of creating PPACA was to “achieve near-universal coverage and to do so through shared responsibility among government, individuals, and employers” also to be able to “improve the fairness, quality, and affordability of health insurance coverage” and to be able to “improve health-care value, quality, and efficiency while reducing wasteful spending and making the health-care system more accountable to a diverse patient population” .Those were the top three aims that were pointed out in drawing up the policies for PPACA to develop what was hoped to be universal healthcare for the citizens of the United States. While the PPACA does have its benefits, such as it would cover pre-existing conditions where most private insurances do not do, more people have the

Moreover, the lack of access to health care is morally wrong because it is a fundamental right for humans to maintain self-dignity, fairness in the dispensing of health care, and the inclusion of all in society. Kantian’s ethical theory would argue that it is a moral duty to distribute health care more evenly so that the disadvantaged members of society have a similar chance at access to care. The consequence of those health disparities among the disadvantaged affects everyone’s quality of care and affects communities’ adversely. As a result, the cost shift from annual emergency room visits by the uninsured cost the public over $100,000 billion annually and as a result, distributes approximately an additional $1000 to each family’s insurance premium (Lachman, 2012)). Another example of distribution injustice is the unfair allocation of health care among race and gender. Studies have shown that there is a racial and gender bias in end stage renal failure patients, there is a disproportionate number of white males referred to transplant specialists as opposed to blacks and women. Additionally, their wait on the transplant list is longer, if they ever make it onto the waiting list (Beauchamp, 2013).

From a social justice perspective, quality healthcare is perceived as an innate right of every individual. The problem with this perspective is it is not a universally held sentiment. For example, individuals would argue from an economic standpoint that social justice is a “value” and healthcare is a commodity which drives our nation’s economy, thus presenting

“In 2010, Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in order to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care” (Supreme Court Opinion, 1). In America, it is a basic necessity to possess health care, logically, Congress would like to make such a necessity more accessible to Americans. Due to a divided government, there are variant views on whether this is necessary and just. Health care benefits all Americans; it is just a matter of if the policy of a required national health care is beneficial.

Having a health care is a right that everyone should have, as the World Health Organization (WHO) Constitution enshrines “…the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right of every human being.” It means that those that cannot afford health care should also be entitled to it just as they are entitled to food, housing, work, education, non-discrimination, access to information, and participation.

For too long, the U.S. has not been supporting its citizens with equitable, accessible, and affordable health care which has been detrimental to the U.S. health care system and economy. The individual mandate is the best option for distributing the cost burden more equitably by increasing the total number of people with health insurance and reducing the cost burden for those with pre-existing conditions. Furthermore, by guaranteeing that more people have access to affordable and high quality health insurance and by providing free preventable services, the law will reduce overall health care spending in the U.S. in the future. Most importantly, the individual mandate is ethically and morally the correct. Recognizing and supporting the individual mandate aligns the U.S. with other nations by adopting the principle that health care is a right to all people and not to a privileged few. Americans pride themselves in their freedoms and are strong supporters of individual rights. The individual mandate helps protect the right of all Americans to obtain affordable and high quality health

The philosophy relayed by the book’s author consistently leads back to the moral question that must be asked in the initial design of the healthcare system. That determination has to do as to whether the government has a duty to act when there are those within their own country do not have equitable access to hospitals and doctors for the treatment of their conditions.14

Health care in the United States needs to be reformed to be more equitable to all citizens regardless of their race and financial situation. Those in charge of reforming health care should consider the principles of social justice outlined in Catholic social teaching as guidelines for ethical health care reform. Those principles are: the dignity of human beings, the common good, solidarity, and subsidiarity. These four social-justice principles provide a foundation for a virtuous and economically sound improvement in medical resource allocation; a Christian prescription for health care reform. It is clear that we have a duty to improve access, affordability, and quality of care for all citizens because of their human dignity. Frequently missing from the discussion of health care reform is the role of personal responsibility. Pope Benedict XVI has emphasized the point: “In the name of freedom, there has to be a correlation between rights and duties, by which every person is called to assume responsibility for his or her choices” (Reid, 32). Health care should be available to everyone regardless of work status, financial situation, race, gender or theological views.

Nurses are constantly challenged by changes which occur in their practice environment and are under the influence of internal or external factors. Due to the increased complexity of the health system, nowadays nurses are faced with ethical and legal decisions and often come across dilemmas regarding patient care. From this perspective a good question to be raised would be whether or not nurses have the necessary background, knowledge and skills to make appropriate legal and ethical decisions. Even though most nursing programs cover the ethical and moral issues in health care, it is questionable if new nurses have the depth of knowledge and understanding of these issues and apply them in their practice

The health care industry continually deals with the lives of individuals and is bound by the ethical and legal aspects that influence decisions of health care professionals in their clinical practice. This essay aims to discuss the various issues and ethical dilemmas that arise with regards to the consent of consumers. In the attempt to explore these points, different literatures are used to shed light on this topic. This paper begins by defining what consent is and the role of nurses or the health care team in being an advocate of the patient when requiring consent. It moves on with the discussion of ethical frameworks, which are recognized nationally and internationally, as these carry significant influences in health care decision-making. The essay also brings out the essence of ethical theories and its relevance to consent giving. It then tackles the similarities and differences of the Code of Ethics and ethical guidelines relevant to both nursing and midwives as both professions work closely in the care of mothers, children and families. Issues and views from experienced professionals in these fields are presented and critically compared. It then considers both ethical and legal aspects, which seeks arguments and rational implications. The last topic points to the social and spiritual factors pertinent to consent that impact the society particularly on the care of patients and concludes by summarising discussed points and arguments about consent.

Keeping healthcare affordable for all citizens is important. Every person in this country should have the basic right to health care. The article Rights to Healthcare in the United States: Inherently Unstable discuss the rights people should have for healthcare as well as how Medicare and Medicaid came about. This paper discusses some points I agreed with in the article and different ways our country can improve health care.