With access to healthcare
becoming increasingly limited, the question is raised as to whether or not existing
resources should be selectively allocated. While many argue that a person’s
health is a direct manifestation of the choices they make, others acknowledge
the difficulty and the inherent wrongness in judging the lifestyles of
citizens, especially for something as essential as healthcare.
First and foremost,
those in favour of imposing the aforementioned restrictions on healthcare
substantiate their argument on the grounds that there is presently an insufficiency
of healthcare and therefore it must be rationally distributed. Smokers, drug
addicts, the clinically obese, etc., those who “do not take care” of their
bodies should not take priority over people who have had led healthy lives and
need the same resources for illnesses or injuries that were out of their
control. They also suggest that the restrictions would send a message to future
generations as well, incentivizing a healthy lifestyle while deterring
unhealthy activities.
Upon initial consideration
this argument seems logical, however, further examination reveals that the
subject is not as black and white. To begin with, there are a number of
activities that can contribute to poor health, many of which are hard to
diagnose and often outside of the person’s control as well. Poor emotional
health, medical history, demanding jobs, stress, and peer pressure are all
examples of factors that can contribute to a poor physical state although they
are not a result of apathy or lack of concern. Even professionals such as
firefighters, who work for the benefit of society, knowingly put themselves in
danger and end up with broken bones, burns, cuts, etc. It would also be
difficult to decisively conclude what causes a person’s decline in health, as a
lack of concern or dangerousness of lifestyle cannot be quantified, and are nearly
impossible to verify. Take for example an obese person who suffers from
diabetes sustains a bodily injury that would normally be caused by being
overweight; it would be difficult to determine whether or not such conditions
were a result of obesity. Such a person could be denied healthcare merely
because they are overweight, even if it did not cause any of their physical
problems. There is also no one to make the decision of who to grant healthcare
to. Such a procedure could not be carried out by a doctor, as it would be too
time consuming and a waste of resources.
Even if practicality
issues could be solved, there is something inherently wrong in restricting
healthcare based on lifestyle. Healthcare is essential, and therefore by giving
it to one person over another, it is valuing said person more. Human worth
cannot be determined in such a way. It is similar to determining which person
is more of a contribution to society, something that is equally wrong, only it
is based on lifestyle choices. To connect this issue legally, the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that everyone has the right to liberty, which protects an individual's freedom to act
without physical restraint and the power to make important personal choices. By
determining who will have access to healthcare by lifestyle choices, this
fundamental right would be infringed upon. A restriction on essential service
based on the way a person acts then becomes a restriction on the way that
person acts. Finally, this is problem causing as it condemns activities such as
overeating, smoking, and drinking, which are no illegal, but could lead to the
denial of healthcare.
* Upon looking for
images, I felt that none would enhance the meaning of this response.
Articles:
No comments:
Post a Comment