Essay --

This paper takes a case analysis approach to considering the ethical and legal implications of the â€Å"right† to health care in contemporary America. The case scenario assumes that the government has enacted a new national health care policy. All citizens are guaranteed an annual income of $20,000 and the right to purchase (at an annual cost of $1,500) a comprehensive health insurance policy covering all routine medical and hospital costs. People who fail to purchase this insurance plan must pay cash for all health services. If non-insured individuals do not have the money to pay for services, the hospital and/or physician will deny treatment. This â€Å"comprehensive† insurance package is not without certain important limitations and exclusions. Notably, no coverage is provided for illness or disability arising directly from the individual’s own unhealthy behaviors (e.g., smoking, overeating, drinking, etc.). This paper examines the legal and ethical implications of this health care system (for individual patients, hospital administrators, health care providers, and the society at large) by looking at the situation facing two hypothetical patients. The first patient, â€Å"Mr. Puffer† purchased the $1,500 plan but finds that costs related to the treatment of his lung cancer are not covered (because Mr. Puffer is a long-time smoker). The second patient, â€Å"Mr. Spender† has failed to purchase the insurance plan and is now being denied admission and treatment for his acute appendicitis since he has neither insurance coverage nor the cash to pay for the treatment. Both Mr. Puffer and Mr. Spender contend that the hospital has violated their right to health care. Health Care as a â€Å"Moral Duty† versus a â€Å"Moral Right† The two patients’ claim... ...only solution to the dilemmas posed in this case is to completely re-design the health care system. It must have as its starting point a system of distributing health care benefits based on moral values, not marketplace values. A good beginning would be adherence to the moral principle that health care is (as both Mr. Puffer and Mr. Spender asserted) a basic right not a privilege based on income level or â€Å"good behavior.† If health care is indeed a right and not a privilege, an ethical system should provide for universal access to health care. Having established these basic guiding principles, the system designers would then have to grapple with the logistics of rationing existing health care resources (as necessarily limited by technology, funding, etc.) in a manner which takes into account principles of distributive justice and the underlying values of the society.