The Principle of Justice - Essay Example

Law and Justice Justice as a concept refers to a complex ethical principle. Justice de s a process of using laws to fairly, morally, and impartially treat all people. Justice forms a central core of morality and entails giving every individual his or her due: what they deserve. There are three fundamental parts that make up the principle of justice, which are equality, fairness, and impartiality. The delivery of justice through the administration of law evokes different reactions and emotions among the different parties involved in various cases under different circumstances. In most instances, the winners of the cases administered through law may view themselves as the recipients of justice while the losers deem themselves as victims of justice denied. When people feel they have been wronged or offended, there are four types of justice that they can pursue to attain reparation. The four categories of justice are: distributive, restorative, procedural, and retributive justice. The application of law to decide cases acts as a double edge sword where the concept of justice is denied or satisfied. The cases Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General) and Auton (guardian ad litem) v. British Columbia (Attorney General) provide instances where the law satisfies the concept of justice (SCC). The case Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) evokes a situation where the law appears to fail and succeed in justifying the concept of justice (SCC). Based on these cases, law can either serve to satisfy the concept of justice or fail to deliver same. Individuals may use four categories of law to seek justice. Through distributive, restorative, procedural, and retributive justice people may achieve reparation. Distributive justice bases its roots on the principle of equality and social order. It seeks equality in terms of what people receive from attention to goods and/or services. It provides an avenue for people to seek their fair share of what they believe they deserve. Restorative justice aims at putting things in the way they were before a wrong happened. Restorative justice provides a means for the offended party to seek some form of restitution from the offender. Restorative justice also is referred to as corrective justice where the emphasis is on apology and some form of restitution to correct any damage incurred by the betrayed party. Procedural justice bases its logic on fairness and the concept of fair play. This form of justice looks at showing people that a fair process is used in determining resource allocation. If people find an imbalance in the resources they receive, compared to others, while believing that a fair process was used, they can accept the results of the process. Retributive justice provides an avenue for the offended to seek some sort of revenge on the person who committed a wrong. Retributive justice seeks to see that the offender suffers in a similar way as the person who was offended. In most instances where parties seek justice, the first avenues that they pursue are through distributive and procedural justice. If both distributive and procedural justice fails to satisfy their view of justice, they likely aim at seeking same through retributive or restorative justice. The essential aspect in respect of all these types of justice is for the offended party to attain fairness and equality through the administration of law basing on them. Legislation is used to deliver justice by providing equal rights to all persons involved in a case without discrimination. Law helps to achieve equality through distributive justice where social institutions are to ensure that burdens and benefits become distributed among members of society in a fair and just manner. The law helps to satisfy justice by ensuring that all social institutions distribute benefits and burdens evenly and fairly among their people without any form of discrimination. In the case Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruled in favor of the appellants by implicating the government for denying them equal rights as disadvantaged members of society (63). The appellants were deaf and the government did not accord them medical interpretation as they preferred to communicate through sign language. The court ruled that the inability of the government to provide sign interpreters for the appellants violated their equality rights and constituted towards discrimination based on physical disability. Persons with physical disabilities are born into society just as any other perfectly normal person. They are entitled to similar benefits provided by the government to its entire population. It is inequitable for the government to exclude them from any benefits extended to the other members of the society. Through this case, the administration of law helped to deliver justice to the appellants based on the principles of equality and impartiality. The court viewed that the government is entitled to share its benefits to its entire population including the disabled. Through distributive justice, the appellants became able to receive their fair share of services that they believed the government was excluding them from. This case presents a situation where the concept of justice is satisfied through the administration of law. Auton (guardian ad litem) v. British Columbia (Attorney General) presents a case where legislation satisfied the concept of justice (133). The court ruling rejected government funding treatment for autistic children as it is not protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court argued that the treatment did not fall under the core medically necessary treatments. The court ruling appears unfair in the first instance as denial of treatment to children with autism constitutes a violation of their equality rights for a start. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also promotes the healthy living of its citizens (SCC). The law appears to discriminate children with autism by not securing and promoting their healthy living through provision of necessary treatment to facilitate their full living. The court does not appear to bend the law to accommodate the autistic parent’s demands. The court tries to reach a fair resolution by interpreting the situation at hand carefully. The court bases its decision on procedural justice. According to the provincial health legislation and the Canada Health Act, the benefit of funding for all medically required treatment is not guaranteed by the law (SCC). Through procedural justice, the court decided that the non-inclusion of autistic children in the law was not discriminatory. By comparing the autistic children to another comparative group, the court ensures that the autistic children do not become sidelined in the process of allocating government funding. The process of allocating government funding for provision of medical treatment to autistic children does not discriminate any groups. The appellants in this case are forced to agree with the court’s interpretation of the law and justice is served to the government. The case Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) provides a situation where the law satisfies and fails to satisfy the concept of justice (35). Justice as a concept promotes freedoms and rights of individuals. Under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, individuals are endowed with the right to life and security. Healthcare promotes healthy lives of people. The decision by the SCC to rule against the Hospital Insurance Act and the Quebec Health Insurance Act offers justice to both appellants. Mr. George Zeliotis becomes able to access medical care without facing long waits, thus promoting his life (SCC). The long waits at public hospitals may lead to deaths of such patients. Mr. Jacques Chaoulli also gets to undertake his own private practice, which aims at promoting the lives of the sick. Resulting from the reduced waiting time, private doctors may save lives that can be lost through long waits in hospitals. This decision by the SCC can be viewed as social justice, where there are equitable rights to access and participation in every delivery of goods and services within society. All persons should have access to the similar things that might aid in improvement of their health. This ruling provides equal participation and access to healthcare by both appellants, and the ruling satisfies justice. The court’s ruling can also be interpreted as failure to provide justice to the entire population. Not all patients will be able to afford the cost of private healthcare. The court decision should have focused on incorporating the entire population members in its ruling. Under procedural justice, it will be imperative for the court to receive appeals from other members of society in regard to exclusion from its decision. Healthcare services should include all members of society and thus should become distributed equitably and in a fair manner. The court decision should focus on reducing the waiting time at public hospitals to ensure that members from low income families are able to receive similar treatment as proposed for those seeking treatment in private institutions. The court ruling appears unfair towards members in society with low income as they are not represented in the process. This case serves to provide a perfect example of a situation where the law serves to satisfy and fail to satisfy the concept of justice. The ruling by the SCC to reject a request by a Halifax couple to have the cost of in-vitro fertilization covered by the provincial healthcare system appears to be a situation where legislation fails to satisfy the concept of justice (Moulton 7). The court ruling can also be argued to provide a situation where law satisfies the concept of justice. From the perspective of distributive justice, the court decision can be viewed as discriminatory towards the infertile couple. It appears as though the appellants had been denied justice. Justice requires that there be equal distribution of burdens and benefits to all members of society. So too does justice call for equitable access to all social services by members of society. All members of society should achieve the benefits of social institutions equitably. Infertility is a medical complication that affects many citizens and requires publicly funded treatment as it is costly. Infertile couples are equal citizens and require medical assistance as any other citizens. Failure to provide funding for in-vitro fertilization appears to curtail their rights and freedoms of human beings. Their right to access healthcare services also seems discriminated against. Considering that the inability to fertilize is their medical condition, the law should allow them to freely access medical care to solve their problem. The court decision to deny the Halifax couple their request for government funding for in-vitro fertilization is unfair. The couple and other infertile Canadians should receive government support just as other ordinary and law abiding citizens. The inability of such persons to access vital health services that promote their lives at an affordable cost is discriminatory and a denial of social justice. This case provides an example of where the law does not satisfy justice. The court ruling also provides a scenario where the administration of law satisfies the concept of justice. From the viewpoint of procedural justice, the court accurately interprets the law by denying the Halifax couple in-vitro fertilization (Moulton 7). The law stipulates that the provincial government was not under any rule to pay for in-vitro fertilization. Under the law, in-vitro fertilization is classified as a non-necessary medical procedure that the provincial government is not required to pay for. The court identifies that there are other fertilization procedures which are less costly and which the couple can try. This appears to be a fair decision as the couple also is provided with options by the court. The court ruling serves justice to the government, which is faced with a limited budget that cannot cater for expensive medical procedures that are not medically necessary. The case provides a situation where justice seems denied to the couple, but at the same time justice has been served to the government through the application of law. Justice as a concept intends to promote fairness, impartiality, and equality among individuals within society. The application of justice through the administration of legislation is a challenging task that brings up debate among parties involved in cases. Legislation may appear to satisfy the concept of justice dependent on the various angles that one might undertake to study cases. The four types of justice provide different perspectives where law is applied. Distributive and procedural types of justice provide the most common avenues for the application of the key principles of justice, which are equality and fairness. The case of justice requires constant vigilance to foresee that its intentions are upheld in the various settings where it may be applied through the rule of law. By providing relevant examples, the cases Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General) and Auton (guardian ad litem) v. British Columbia (Attorney General) have indicated how the law can work to satisfy the concept of justice. The case Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) and that of the Halifax couple both provide scenarios where depending on the perspective of the reader or analyst, the law can be seen to satisfy and fail to satisfy the concept of justice. The law acts as a double edged sword which cuts both sides of the cloth based on the perspective of the person analyzing the concept of justice. In some instances, the law plays fairly and equally. In other situations, the administration of law seems unfair and unequal in the provision of justice to members of society. Works Cited Auton (guardian ad litem) v. British Columbia (Attorney General). 3 SCR 657. Supreme Court of Canada. 2004. Making Rights a Reality?: Disability Rights Activists and Legal Mobilization. Lisa Vanhala. Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print. Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General). 1 SCR 791. Supreme Court of Canada. 2005. Bioethics on Canada: A Philosophical Introduction. Carol Collier, ?Rachel Frances, and Christine Haliburton. Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2011. Print. Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General). 3 SCR 624. Supreme Court of Canada. 1997. Exploring Disability Identity and Disability Rights Through Narratives. Ravi Malhotara and Morgan Rowe. Routledge, 2013. Print. Moulton, Donalee. "Supreme Court Refuses to Hear MD's Infertility Case." CMAJ.JAMC (2000): 7. Print. Read More