Health care for all citizens is a basic need and essential to any society. Society members have a right to proper medical treatment regardless of their socio-economic status; however, it must abide by the ethics of medical profession in its exercise to ensure that quality healthcare is provided. Moral claims are true relative to the individual. The procedure in deciding what is morally true and what is not is not agreed unanimously by all and relativists argue that in respect to morality, there is no way of deciding what is true and what is not true and thus no objective truth.
A patient has a right to reject a particular treatment since it is legal if he or she feels that the medical intervention will invade the body or is harmful. For a person of proper mental consent, any health care professional cannot intervene in such a case, this is known as euthanasia. The healthcare profession has to go by the wishes of the patients. It is allowed for physicians to assist to die in cases where it is along and painful death; this is seen as helping the patient in escaping the long and most painful death; in the State of Oregon Physicians do assist in suicide when a patient asks the doctor for pills. What one may or is left to wonder is whether is the physician obliged to do so, to an extent where the president cannot intervene, since it is in the law?
Abortion has been and is still a big subject of debate in whether it is legal or illegal, and further still is the question of a Medicare assists in procuring it. There may be a moral obligation to provide the fetus with food, but does the fetus has the right to live since it cannot feel the pain and does not have a full developed neurology ant it was a rape incidence? The right to life therefore does not allow you to demand someone to save your life; as for a moral obligation by a raped woman to procure an abortion. The society might give you an obligation to save someone by plugging you to the person so that you save his or her life, is it your moral obligation to let go and kill the person or remain plugged so that you can save the life, what about a raped woman? Is it morally correct in African Culture to circumcise a female?
Technology can take a somatic cell and pout it into an empty egg cell and connect it to electronic chemical shocks and a human being is formed, how ethical is it to implant artificially created embryo into a woman’s womb or suing test-tubes? All these have negative consequences and ethical theories which define the universal moral truth deny the existence of a universal moral truth. They justify the claim that moral truth is relative since in the argument moral claims are true relative to cultures
Some motivations compel doctors to hide in formation from a patient. This is known as paternalism, when one treats patients like his or her own children but in the case of a rational patient, this is violating the patients’ autonomy and a conflict between beneficence and autonomy occurs. We therefore need to use moral intuition to help solve conflicts between principals. The doctor should therefore give his advice and leave the patient to make a decision on his or her own.
For the existence of people and to enable them enjoy life good health care promotes their well being, it is their primary good and is fundamental besides other amenities and therefore it is a good unlike others to hid or keep important information. It is obvious for one to know his or her health, what is happening with your health and what are your chances of getting tests to make sure of not getting high blood pressure or cancer?. This means, the information from the healthcare professionals is crucial to your life, which cannot be compared to any other good.
Healthcare has tremendous international significance of birth, death, and illness. It is a significance issue which involves our basic sense of empathy and compassion. For American citizens, there is no plan for health care from work, as indicated by the wealthy people and working people who are wealth enough but do not qualify for medical healthcare because there is no Medicare insurance plan for them. Most businesses fail because they bear the burden of providing insurance for people when they become ill, and therefore, they are reducing the number of insured people due to competition compared to other developed nations which have their own sponsored healthcare plans.
Healthcare being a social product and as a result it is a very complicated system, and the fact that society is also involved in it, it must benefit from it. Due to its unequal distribution and being not able to predict health care provision needs cost sharing and thus we need a community based insurance because none is excluded by disease and death. This requires us to pool our resources together so that we make sure that we all get something out of it. It is important to point out that healthcare needs are largely underserved and considering that most people do not deserve the health care they get and cannot predict what will happen and therefore it is only fair to pool our resources together in order to provide insurance for everybody.
Respect should be given to the existence of an autonomous being and to a certain extent help them be autonomous, therefore if one is dying and cannot afford to pay a health care or medicine, it is not respecting one’s autonomy, autonomy can only be respected by helping him or her in staying a live. It is however not clear which aspect is stronger but both exists as Kanty’s argument of having a duty to give to charity in order to treat people as ends in themselves.
It is justice for the under deserved healthcare burden to be distributed equally, since having significant health care needs is like a natural disaster occurring to the society and people need to help each user when facing disasters, we normally have a moral intuition that lucky people should help out unlucky people. According to Nozick, on the basis of justice on the contrary he argues that we should not give people healthcare if they cannot receive it, since to him the good and bad luck is not a justice issue. If therefore would be unjust for our healthcare system to systematically treat the minorities unfairly, and denying someone health care for the fact that they cannot afford it, it is not justice because you are not doing something o somebody that you are not doing to someone else.
For people who cannot afford medical care in order for them to survive, then it is not too much cost to help, since the beneficence is greater than non- male finance. The president’s idea of the principle of moderate, argues that we are obligated to provide people with an adequate level of healthcare, it is not an excessive burden, and it should be readily available and accessible to all people. 30% of citizens of America have problems in access to healthcare, which is more than any other industrialized country, besides more than 40% or more per capita is spent in healthcare than any other industrialized nation which have universal healthcare in a single ties system.
In Rawlsian’s approach for justice to be seen everyone should have access to healthcare that is based on the principal of differences and equality of opportunity. Any society has a normal range of opportunity and the needs to healthcare are deviations from species-typical functional organization. In any society, anyone shares in the normal range is determined by his or her talents and skills. It is because of impairment of normal functioning an individual’s share in the normal range is restricted but on the basis of the original position, equal opportunities trumps any right differences in economic advantage, it is our right and not an obligation, it is the right to get education, for it is more important to have the equality of opportunity which is provided by education rather than who pays for it. Justice requires everyone to have equal opportunity in order to make the most of the talent and skills, and therefore, everyone should have access to the healthcare that restores his or her normal functioning that is not impaired and also to their normal opportunity range.
Everyone should get the healthcare that will restore him or her normal opportunity range. According to the president’s commission, one cannot argue for a right to healthcare and someone’s personhood and personal identity are controversial. How ethical is it, by removing the mind of one person and putting it in another person’s head and vicevarsa, and there is mind exchange of the two. According to him, the mental state is much more important than the body in determining what your essential identity is, like in the case of Dennett and thus a universal medical health care provision is necessary, but according to Englehardt, we cannot have universal consent because then we would need universal consent for every major action done by the government and as such, we cannot have universal healthcare because, first you would have to pay for people who increase chances of becoming sick by their activities that place their health in risk and thus, pay for people who gamble with their health, the controversy that people who are rich are unhealthier than poor people and people who are of higher social status are healthier than people of lower social status, intrusiveness of healthcare rights to particular moral vision by paying for services you consider immoral and lastly, temptation to restrict free choices for the sake of efficiency in that one will try to ration things out so that people will have less choice because that will be the best way to save money.
There is need for us to differentiate between treatment and enhancement, for justice does not require any person to be given healthcare in order for them to have above their normal opportunity range, because a person who is born and because of genetics becomes a dwarf has a right to human growth hormone therapy, however, one may ask whether a person who ends up being a dwarf because their genes produce a lot of human growth hormone deserves the same therapy, but in the real sense how can one define “normal”, for we will be forced at a given point to draw a line to enable us to determine what is normal and not because it seems we are only trying to raise the people below “normal” to normal function level to give them equal opportunity.
According to Hobbesian, one must have a particular background moral premise in order to resolve moral controversies, since neither God nor our intuition gives a universally accepted content-full moral definition premises, therefore, health care policy can only derive its authority from the consent of the governed, and since it is the people who are governed therefore as far as Public morality goes, it has to simply be based on autonomy and what we agree to.
Universal healthcare access is only possible if all of us agree to it, but asking for the consent of every individual will be not be reasonable because people will not accept it universally and unanimously, it has to be done by the majority.
Bioethics, Ethical Theory, Justice and Healthcare;
Pages 1 to 24.