Two Tier Medicine in Canada - Essay Example

In Canada, is two-tier MRI just? In Canada, is two-tier MRI just? Two-tier healthcare exists in many countriesincluding Canada. It presupposes that medical services can be received from public and private providers. State provision of healthcare does not mean that it is low quality; its greatest benefit is presented by its accessibility. Private healthcare providers charge their patients with high fees for services which makes it inaccessible for many people. In some narrow healthcare spheres like MRI private and public institutions make real differences. Private providers deliver the service immediately expecting patients to pay a high price for it. Public providers make people wait which can be damaging for their health in case of emergency. Obviously, private healthcare has a right to exist as it has its clients who are ready to pay more for the services; at the same time, it should not make other people who cannot pay for private services disadvantaged in their right to get timely and quality healthcare. According to Levin, modern healthcare system aims at pain reduction and death prevention first. It is expected to take care about all people as life is the most precious thing they have. All people regardless of their social status, race or gender deserve to be healthy. In the case describes, the question of social inequality is striking. One of athletes comes from rich family, so he gets his MRI immediately through private healthcare services. Other athlete who has the same injury has to wait for some time and cope with public healthcare routine to get the results. According to Worthington (2006), healthcare professionals are supposed to act in the interests of their clients, especially if they are children under 18. Despite the permissibility of two-tier system of healthcare in Canada, doctors need to apply ethical concerns to each situation individually and define an optimal solution. People who support egalitarian point of view would state that two-tier MRI in this particular case is unjust. First of all, one person can access the required services timely and the other cannot (Hoedemaekers & Dekkers, 2003). Second, both people cannot have equal access to the same service as it requires additional payment. As far as not all people can pay for the needed service, private radiology is discriminative towards the poor or socially disadvantages people who simply cannot afford the service. They have the alternative to wait; however, in case of trauma waiting is harmful for patients. Overall, this point of view insists on the fact that private MRI is always wrong even when community benefits from it. Libertarians support the idea that people who earn money can spend it the way they want. If private MRI practice is approved by the government, a person who purchases this service cannot be blamed for their action. Private MRI is not fraudulent; it is transparent and well-organized system of private healthcare which allows people to get quality services for their money (Hoedemaekers & Dekkers, 2003). According to this point of view, private MRI is permissible in all cases even when it is harmful for public healthcare or people who have no alternatives. None of these perspectives can be fully applicable in life. Idealism and equality manifested by egalitarian philosophy do not compromise with all stakeholders involved in the issue. For instance, if private MRI is available for all people, businessmen who run the healthcare facility will have to pay for all those people out of their pocket. As a result, their business will soon collapse and they will close their private clinic leaving people with no opportunity to get MRI faster than it is provided in state healthcare. On the other hand, compassion towards people who cannot afford private healthcare services should exist. It is necessary to remember that private healthcare facilities are taxed; these taxes are used to support those people in need. If someone gets MRI in private clinic, a part of money people pay goes to taxes which further benefit those people who cannot afford private healthcare services and use state medicine. Failure of egalitarian and libertarian arguments leads to the acceptance of MRI under certain consequences. If private MRI does not harm people in public healthcare, it can be accepted as morally permissible practice. Moreover, it serves as helping hand for Canadian public healthcare where the lack of MRI units per population is widely recognized and humbly addressed (Emery et al., 2009). Long waiting lists are poorly managed in public healthcare; even though there are specific ethical board guidelines for care prioritization and management, pains to assure quality and effectiveness of these interventions are not taken. If there is a choice to have one person diagnosed or both persons placed on the waiting list, it is better to have at least one positive outcome in this situation. If both athletes happen to be in the waiting list, their position will be the same and the consequences for their sport career will be bad in both cases. Their equality will cost health and perspectives of both. If Sanders buys MRI, other people who cannot afford it will experience inequality but they will not suffer physically from this decision. The health of the athlete will be saved. In this way, it is morally permissible to buy MRI in case of emergency if a person has money. However, someone should take the responsibility for the situation where not all children can have access to the same service. Government which is authorized to fund public healthcare system in Canada fails to meet the needs of people due to lack of budget required to purchase MRI units to cope with waiting lists issue (Cheng, Hopman, Islam & Shortt, 2012). Struggling with public healthcare, Canadian government pays not enough attention to emerging private MRI centers and other healthcare facilities. According to Bercovici and Bell (2008), relationships between government and private healthcare establishments remain obscure. Moreover, private MRI establishment do not cooperate with public healthcare. They serve only a small minority of population which can afford to pay the set price for services. The government does not monitor price-setting processes as well as it does not encourage cooperation between private and public healthcare branches. While public MRI centers are overcrowded during weekends and non-business hours, private MRI centers which operate only during business hours have almost no waiting lists (Bercovici & Bell, 2008). This consideration requires governmental attention. If both healthcare branches are aligned by a single value of healthy life, they can be more productive. Overall, legal recognition of private MRI center requires further actions in order to include them in general healthcare system which is highly valued by Canadians for its accessibility. Even though one of the boys involved in the case does not have money to pay for private MRI, there are alternatives which can help him to get timely care. First on all, community help and support, team participation and public organization which are related to boy’s life can contribute to fund-raising issue in this case. According to Levin (2012), “the hunger for relief from pain and misery tends to encourage charity and sympathy and to reinforce the drive to equality, fairness, and fellow-feeling”. In this way, inability to afford private MRI in case of emergency can be resolved with the help of other people. Kindness of ordinary people often fills in the gaps in the areas where government has little or no control. Collaboration of community, charity organization, private MRI centers and government can greatly contribute to the community and have positive impact in equal distribution and access to healthcare services. Those people who cannot afford private MRI in case of emergency need to have a certain instance they can address to receive timely help and community support. If such a system works, private healthcare facilities would be fully integrated in Canadian healthcare system. If for-profit healthcare establishments cooperate with local communities and governments, they will positively contribute to people’s health and well-being. In such conditions, not only rich people will benefit from private healthcare and the ethical issue will be resolved. There is one huge objection to this argument. It requires all people to be proactive on the way to this dilemma resolution. High degree of self-organization of each community member and collaborative atmosphere are difficult to achieve; however, it is possible. If private healthcare facilities make a step forward to meet the needs of their community, social inequality related to service fee will not be so sticking. They need to accept ethical principles and help people who need timely care and cannot receive it in public healthcare. Absence of governmental control over private healthcare providers can make their prices unjust. Increased control and cooperation can improve ethical side of this situation and show that government takes care about all sides involved in the issue. In summary, private healthcare services have the right to exist. Their appearance is related to government’s inability to deliver quality and timely healthcare services through public system. Private healthcare is unequal because it is for-profit; moreover, it is totally excluded from Canadian healthcare system. It is not supervised by government who can stimulate businessmen to cooperate with public healthcare providers or make people revise their pricing strategy. Considering drawbacks of public healthcare, private MRI center create an alternative to long waiting lists and slow progress. People can use them in emergency cases when they need to get timely help. Cooperation of business owners, community and government can improve the system of healthcare in Canada and resolve the issue of inequality related to for-profit orientation of private healthcare faculties. If government fails to meet demands of people; it is better to ask all related institutions for help instead of ignoring or criticizing them. References Bercovici, E., & Bell, C. M. (2008). How busy are private MRI centres in Canada?. Healthcare Policy, 4(2), 59. Cheng, G., Hopman, W. M., Islam, O., & Shortt, S. (2012). Public or private magnetic resonance imaging: what do the patients think?. Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal, 63(1), 12-17. Emery, D. J., Forster, A. J., Shojania, K. G., Magnan, S., Tubman, M., & Feasby, T. E. (2009). Management of MRI wait lists in Canada. HealthCare Policy, 4(3), 76. Hoedemaekers, R., & Dekkers, W. (2003). Justice and solidarity in priority setting in health care. Health Care Analysis, 11(4), 325-343. Levin, Y. (2012). Putting health in perspective. The New Atlantis - A Journal of Technology & Society, 36 (2012): 23-36. Worthington, R. (2006). Standards of healthcare and respecting childrens rights. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 208-10. Read More