Is Human Dignity Alone Enough to Advocate for Universal Healthcare as a Human Right - Assignment Example

Human Dignity and Universal Healthcare Student’s Name Institution Affiliation Human Dignity and Universal Healthcare Healthcare is one of the most important human needs whose cost has been on the increase in the past century. The rising healthcare costs have made the search for quality and affordable healthcare a nightmare for people who cannot afford it. Now more than never, the increasing cost of health care has become a major concern. The society is beginning to realize more needs to be done to correct the situation. One of the proposals to correct the situation is the adoption of a universal healthcare system. Many of the available literature on the subject use the term universal healthcare interchangeable with universal health coverage. WHO definition of universal health care encompasses three distinct aspects namely: equal access to healthcare services, quality and reliable services and cost friendly health care. Thus, universal health care is all about ensuring that everybody gets equal access to good quality healthcare services at an affordable price. Many countries around the globe, as well as religious institutions support the idea of a universal healthcare cover. However, this has not come about without debates. Wealthy countries like the United States have long battled with this issue. In this paper, we are going to look at the concept a Universal healthcare and human dignity through at least two of the three perspectives presented by Marmot, Bujisen and Condit in their respective works. First Perspective: Equal access to Healthcare and Human Dignity In 2004, Marmot published an interesting article titled “Dignity and Inequality.” In his article, he argued that human dignity is grounded on autonomy and the provision of universal health care services is a way of promoting human dignity. Therefore, the failure to provide universal health care was in effect failing to honor the dignity of human beings. Marmot’s perspective on universal healthcare strongly associates human dignity and healthcare. However, the question is, what is human dignity? Human dignity is all about valuing all that human beings possess. The idea is based on the reality that human beings are unique, therefore, there is need to respect each other’s values and always uphold that which is moral. Marmot (2004) strongly believes that human dignity is strongly rooted in autonomy. He links human dignity to the idea of universal health care through social structures. He believes that humans have dignity by the mere fact that they are human and that it can be acquired by mere act of doing the moral thing. His description are similar to those presented in quadrant 1A. The idea of human dignity as described by Marmot is allowing human beings to act in a purpose that is true to their wants and beliefs. Simply put, human dignity upholding human rights that an individual believes in. This concept begs the question, is human dignity is subject to individual interpretations? To answer this question, Mr. Marmot states that the concept of dignity cannot occur in the absence of society. Therefore, the two are interlinked in this way, societal structures and status influences our perception of what is dignified and what is not. This line of thought brings to focus exactly how society understands the concept of human dignity as doing what is best for everyone. It means that Marmot in a way agrees that dignity can be acquired or lost depending on the actions of the community which is similar to the ideas presented in quadrant 2B. Thus, human dignity is one the founding arguments to having a universal health cover. Promoting human rights in a way it advocates for the protection of human values, a feature acknowledged in the description of human dignity. Therefore, if healthcare is an acceptable human right then it follows that provision of universal healthcare indirectly believes in and promotes human dignity. Another way of looking at human dignity and its contribution to the attainment of universal healthcare is by looking at the idea from a societal context. Human interactions with one another are what constitutes a society and is the most powerful force that determines its welfare. It has been established that human dignity is engrained in an individual’s freedoms then, it follows that the status of the society is because of how humans exercise their freedoms. This line of thought first acknowledges that dignity is something all humans possess as long as they belong to a community. Therefore, the choice to have a universal healthcare is a reflection of the society’s values, which in turn indicates how much the people believe and uphold human dignity. Second Perspective: Human Dignity Alone Is Not Enough To Advocate For Universal Healthcare As A Human Right. Bujisen’s understanding of human dignity is quite different from Marmot’s. Whereas Marmot strongly believes that human dignity is strongly grounded in autonomy, Bujisen believes that the opposite is more of the case. His article brings forth the concept that autonomy is what brings forth human dignity and not the other way rounds The main idea that comes across when one goes through Bujisen’s work is that he agrees that it is difficult to talk about human dignity without including autonomy too. However, he is very categorical that the two are not explicitly correlated. After reading his article, one gets the impression that Bujisen believes that the concept of human dignity is a very subjective matter. This means how one understands and appreciates human dignity is may be different from that of the next person’s. From his reasoning and arguments one begins to look at autonomy or self-determination as the factor that influences one’s understanding of what human dignity is. Therefore, it follows that what is or not dignified is subject one’s personal interpretations that cannot be imposed on everyone else since we all think and perceive differently. This statement complements the idea that dignity is something everybody has due to the fact that we possess different capabilities as proposed in quadrant 1B. According to him, this is the single most important reason why human dignity is cannot be confused or explicitly linked to human rights. Thereby, it is incorrect for one to argue that human dignity is a fundamental aspect of human rights. It appears that Bujisen’s main concern is how human dignity is being expressly related to human rights. Whereas he does not deny that the two are strongly linked to one another, he attempts to explain that the two are not always mutually exclusive. This is the argument that he uses to demonstrate that one of the instances that this appears to be true is with respect to healthcare. In his argument, Bujisen (2010) notes that people understand that all human beings have the right to seek quality health care and facilitating such an act is the dignified thing to do. This statement goes to show that indeed, human dignity is a ground for calling for a universal healthcare not as a right but as the humane thing to do. Doing the humane thing demonstrates dignity that one acquires by doing the moral thing and correlates to ideas expressed in quadrant 2B. It is true that a universal healthcare is a dignified thing to do as humans especially in the wake of increasing healthcare costs. It is not right that the society sits back and watches as the population that cannot afford to get quality healthcare services continues to grow. However, let not the idea be oversimplified. While considering a universal healthcare cover, it is important to note that there are different types of rights and they are not all enforceable. For example, social rights in Netherlands are not considered enforceable unless they are expressly covered in a particular law. Therefore, the concept of a universal healthcare cannot be expressly termed as a human right just because it is in line with human dignity, rather it a way of demonstrate a different understanding of dignity as that which can be acquired or lost through actions. What are the social attitudes, norms, or circumstances that may have influenced this perspective? To what extent do these social attitudes, norms, or circumstances impact on the understanding of human dignity in this perspective? The reverence for human life and the need to create social balances have influenced man’s understanding of what is human dignity is all about. From the first perspective, it is evident that social interactions influence how we think and perceive human dignity. The quest for a universal health care system has been advocated for on what most people believe is human rights. However, there is no common agreement on what or which of types of rights are more important than others. The lack of a common definition shows that societal differences may be one the reasons why the idea of a common health care system has not yet been achieved. Cultural differences perhaps have the greatest impact on the quest for universal health care. For example, European countries are more willing to adopt a universal health care system compared to their American counterparts. The reason for such differences perhaps, lies in culture and level of social engagement. The American society mostly can be considered capitalistic and democratic community and the idea of a universal health system may not meet on everyone’s expectations. This challenges the concept of universal healthcare. In most societies, most of the major decisions concerning health or other important matters were left to community leaders. With the current modern society, this still holds but the level and willingness of acceptance varies among the different groups. This is the reason the society is witnessing different opinions with regard to human dignity and universal healthcare. Differences in economic status also have an impact on man’s interpretation on what is dignified. Poverty or economic deprivation made access to essential services very difficult for certain people. In the long run, their status has made them result to rather unconventional practices that have soon become acceptable to the fact there are no other alternatives. In some circumstances, one can say that social norms, circumstances, and attitudes have influences man’s opinion concerning human dignity and healthcare. Evaluation of Perspectives Each of the reviewed perspectives has its own merits and demerits; therefore, there is none that can be considered the most appropriate for all scenarios. The first perspective respects man’s autonomy and the right to conform to societal expectations. The perspective recognizes the need to do the right thing for everyone in the society regardless of their personal opinions while at the same time respecting their autonomy. It is evident that the first perspective emphasizes on preservation of human values and how they can be used to drive healthcare reforms. On the other hand, the second perspective holds that autonomy is what drives humanity to seek better lives especially with respect to universal system. Respecting societal and cultural differences appears to be the correct approach if countries are considering adopting a universal health system. the idea of human rights and autonomy according to this perspective are inter related and appear to be asking different communities to first agree on what is an acceptable healthcare system before proposing the idea to the community. Condit’s brings forth important issues that the society has to address with regard with a universal health system. Although his work seem to be going against the common understanding that a universal system is good for all, he does present a few issues with respect to human dignity and freedom of choice. Despite the differences, all the reviewed perspectives have one thing in common; they want to improve the quality of life of humanity although each one is driven by different ideologies. Conclusion The quest for a universal health system may be well underway in certain countries however; the arguments presented for and against it do need to be critically evaluated. The desire to achieve common good appears to be the main aspect that is driving the arguments for human dignity as a driver of social reforms. This point of view has been well explained by Marmot There is need to acknowledge that idea of upholding human dignity cannot be used as blanket argument for a universal healthcare system. Bujise has pointed out why human dignity should not be expressly related to upholding human rights. He has also presented an argument that autonomy and human dignity may not always work towards a common cause unless the a person decides that they should. Finally, Condit’s perspectives on human dignity, human rights and a universal health cover has revealed that perhaps a universal healthcare system is not the most ideal solution to the present challenges. The article has prompted on to look at the long-term consequences of a universal system critically. The most significant contribution made by Condrat is challenging everyone to think of an ideal solution to the current healthcare challenges besides a universal medical system. References Buijsen, M. (2010). Autonomy, Human Dignity, and the Right to Healthcare: A Dutch Perspective. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 19(03), 321-328. Condit, D. (2010). Health-Care Counter-Reform. The Linacre Quarterly, 77(4), 426-444. Marmot, M. (2004). Dignity and inequality. The Lancet, 364(9439), 1019-1021. Sensen, O. (2011). Kant on human dignity. Berlin: De Gruyter. Sherrow, V. (2009). Universal healthcare. New York: Chelsea House. World Health Organization. (2014). Health Financing For Universal Coverage: What Is Universal Coverage? Retrieved from http://www.who.int/health_financing/universal_coverage_definition/en/ Read More