Should medicine be an entitlement?

[gxb]

I have recently read and seen some conversations of healthcare professionals and policymakers expressing their "concerns" about the idea that medicine is becoming a "right or entitlement." My first reaction was..why is this even a topic? I've always believed that every human (and living beings) are entitled to access to medicine as it leads to the fulfillment of the "Life" and "pursuit of happiness" principles set forth by the Deceleration of Independence. Yet, I really want to understand why some people, particularity physicians, might oppose such such a notion. Is it a fear of regulation,reduced revenue, decreased autonomy, or what? Approximately 60 countries in world have Universal Health Care systems (UHC), including almost every European country, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. While these systems vary widely in their characteristics, services, and structures, they function based on the principle that every citizen is entitled to healthcare. These countries, of course, have private sectors, that run parallel to the UHCs but there is still a choice for those who cannot afford private medical service. Please understand, I'm NOT trying to debate the efficiency of ANY healthcare system because I know that no system is perfect and each has it's own pros and cons. However, I just marveled at the fact that some debate whether medicine should be a right in the first place and wanted to know the reasons behind such a stance.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[tea guzzling traveler]

I think the issue more goes to how patients often treat doctors/healthcare professionals. Few would argue that being super rude at the doctor in the ER who is overburdened is productive. Maybe they are referring to the feeling that people feel entitled to healthcare right away and with no inconvenience.

Btw, I agree the right to access medicine is a basic human right. I doubt that is as much in contention.

 

[philosonista]

Yeah, unfortunately I don't think tea guzzling traveler has it right.

 

[tea guzzling traveler]

One can hope right? But yeah, not sure about these doctors.

 

[Holmwood]

UHC is the result of the collective effort by all individuals in society pooling their resources for a common need. Everyone who contributes gains.

Entitlement draws upon charity. Whether you feel that forcing people to be charitable is right or wrong depends upon the culture of your upbringing and the size of your "in-group". I wouldn't mind contributing a portion of my salary to help the peeps over in impoverished nations... while others might think about conserving pooled resources exclusively for the domestic poor and sick, and others might think about conserving pooled resources for tax payers, and others might think about conserving pooled resources within a religious community (ie. nonprofit insurance via samaritan ministeries).

TLDR: There is no UHC=good and business insurance=bad. It depends on the society's preferences/priorities.

 

[typoncho]

I wouldn't call healthcare a "right" because of the way we are conditioned to view the term itself. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are all things that require absolutely nobody else to obtain (aside from a mother and father to conceive you, and possibly someone willing to give their own life to protect your life and liberty). The moment you call something that requires someone else to provide for you a right, you set up a scenario where someone will eventually be forced to provide it for you. There's basically no other way for you to obtain that right, and it is your right so it must be provided. Then again, there was a draft during WWII in order to protect everyone's collective right to life and liberty, but that's because there weren't enough people charitable enough with their own lives to freely give them to protect others. I digress. I think the pursuit of healthcare is absolutely a right, and I hope one day we find a solution here where everyone can have it. But calling a product a right (and unfortunately healthcare is now a product), is not just in my eyes.

 

[karayaa]

I have recently read and seen some conversations of healthcare professionals and policymakers expressing their "concerns" about the idea that medicine is becoming a "right or entitlement." My first reaction was..why is this even a topic? I've always believed that every human (and living beings) are entitled to access to medicine as it leads to the fulfillment of the "Life" and "pursuit of happiness" principles set forth by the Deceleration of Independence. Yet, I really want to understand why some people, particularity physicians, might oppose such such a notion. Is it a fear of regulation,reduced revenue, decreased autonomy, or what? Approximately 60 countries in world have Universal Health Care systems (UHC), including almost every European country, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. While these systems vary widely in their characteristics, services, and structures, they function based on the principle that every citizen is entitled to healthcare. These countries, of course, have private sectors, that run parallel to the UHCs but there is still a choice for those who cannot afford private medical service. Please understand, I'm NOT trying to debate the efficiency of ANY healthcare system because I know that no system is perfect and each has it's own pros and cons. However, I just marveled at the fact that some debate whether medicine should be a right in the first place and wanted to know the reasons behind such a stance.

How far do you take this perspective?
Owning a car leads to fulfillment and happiness. Should everyone be entitled to a subsidized car? That's probably not a perfect example, but your principle seems too broad.
From what I understand, the constitutional rights are negative rights - they mean that the government can't take those things away from people - but they don't mean that the government does/should/can actively provide them to people.

 

[gxb]

How far do you take this perspective?
Owning a car leads to fulfillment and happiness. Should everyone be entitled to a subsidized car? That's probably not a perfect example, but your principle seems too broad.
From what I understand, the constitutional rights are negative rights - they mean that the government can't take those things away from people - but they don't mean that the government does/should/can actively provide them to people.

Health is a universal quest. Unfortunately, many people interpret "Life" as the antithetical of death. Last year, a young girl had to move to Oregon and establish residency just so she could end her life. This girl was breathing air and supposedly had a "life" but only she felt the suffering and pain she was going through.Whether her decision was right or wrong is not the point but the important message to take from this story is that life and health are strongly correlated, if not inseparable. So, to answer your question, she most likely wouldn't have ended her life for not having a car but she did it because she lacked the health that would have enabled to live and work with dignity, and you know what..had she had the health to work and gain, she most likely wouldn't have needed a subsidized car.

 

[Gauss44]

OP, depends on what you mean by, "entitlement." The concept or the attitude?

CONCEPT
1.Concept of who gets medical help: The idea that everyone should have access to medical treatment seems to be widely accepted. That's why there's a great effort to provide care to poor and underserved populations.

versus

ATTITUDE
2. Bad "entitled" attitude that "you owe me": An "entitled" attitude is rarely a good thing.

 

[Gauss44]

I think the issue more goes to how patients often treat doctors/healthcare professionals. Few would argue that being super rude at the doctor in the ER who is overburdened is productive. Maybe they are referring to the feeling that people feel entitled to healthcare right away and with no inconvenience.

Btw, I agree the right to access medicine is a basic human right. I doubt that is as much in contention.

As a long-time ER volunteer, I can agree with that. My sense is that this problem could be reduced but not eliminated. Patients behave that way for many reasons. One of the major reasons, in my observation, comes from a misunderstanding of the doctor's role and how the system works. Patients often think that the doctor is the boss, the doctor is responsible for the wait, the doctor should spend more time and effort helping them, etc. IMO, it would be a step in the right direction for interested parties to work on improving the most common underlying issues (ex. a pamphlet to clarify misunderstandings). To be fair to the patients, doctors are human too, and sometimes deserve what they get from patients, but not always.

Back to OP's point about, "entitlement," I strongly believe that doctors should be able to refuse service to certain patients* so long as it's not clearly an imminent life or death matter.

*Let's use the test of extremes here. For example, let's say that a prescription-drug addicted patient threatens to attack a doctor and his/her family if the doctor refuses to write a prescription. I would recommend that the doctor should be able to refuse service to that patient without having to go to court for a restraining order.

 

[cidem2065]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/should-medicine-be-an-entitlement.1120427/

 

[NTheo91]

I think it is more about the negative attitude people have with healthcare workers (which isn't as widespread as some people seem to believe), rather than a discussion as to whether healthcare is a human right. I think anytime someone pays for a service (either paying into a social program or purchasing a private product), they expect to have a say in what they get which I think is fair. This is especially true in terms of healthcare since the decisions are being made about a person's body. Working with difficult people is unfortunately the reality that anyone in a service industry experiences.

On the subject of rights, FDR actually wanted to make a huge addition to the US Bill of Rights that would give everyone the right to some things such as housing, employment, clothing, a living wage, education, healthcare, leisure, etc (read more about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights). Obviously this never came to be. Anytime you add a right to a legal document, it binds that government to guaranteeing those rights to the citizenry. Some people (typically conservatives and libertarians) think that people can attain those things on their own. Other people (typically socialists and communists) think the government should make an active effort to making sure everyone gets a fair education, healthcare, home, job, etc. The discrepancy over the means to achieving these "rights" is the root of the controversy. Both paths are legitimate, its just a matter of what most of the people believe works for their population.

 

[Narmerguy]

Do not cross-post threads across multiple forums.