Ethics and Healthcare

So in philosophy today we were talking about healthcare and a very interesting ethical question came up. I figured that it would make a great blog. I'll explain the question and then present my view. Now normally I don't ask very much of my readers. It's like listen to me complain about something for a few paragraphs and go on with your day, but this time I'd love for some of you to think about this critically, maybe even share your opinion. Don't worry this is a safe place, no one will judge you.

So the question went something like "In which of these examples is the government not justified in taking your money in a proper healthcare system?" Then the options were like; A. Supplying vaccinations during an epidemic, B.Paying for  alcoholics' liver transplants, C. Helping foreign countries in the aftermath of a disaster, D. All of the above (meaning that all these examples are unjust), and E. None of the above (meaning that they're all just).

This is a class of about 24, we all split up into small groups, and then we all answer using clickers so we get to see a nice little graph of everyone's answers. B had the most votes with 11, E was second with 7, and D was third with 6. After we see everyone's votes people can explain why they chose what. The B's said something like, alcoholics don't deserve our help because they made a poor choice in their life so they have to deal with it themselves. The E's said something intelligent. And the D's said something like, A is just a conspiracy of the pharmaceutical company, B is private healthcare's problem, and C is that countries problem/a personal decision if you want to help.

Now you've probably guessed that I said E. And the I have a number of reasons for this, the most basic being the right of healthcare along with my belief in the importance of equality. My group and I did not see eye to eye on the justification of B.

The issue of tax dollars paying for an alcoholics new liver is very controversial. It seems so easy just to say that they don't deserve our help because they brought this onto themselves. That's what the very opinionated girl behind me said. Which all and all is a fair statement, but it didn't seem like she really thought of the repercussions of such a statement. There are two ways I can defend tax dollars going towards new livers for alcoholics.

The first way is by arguing who's fault is it? I know it seems like such a cliche to blame society, but there is no way to deny that people do get stuck in vicious cycles within society. Saying that these people chose alcohol themselves is like saying people in Baltimore just like dealing drugs (special thanks to "The Wire" for that reference), or people in Honduras choose to be violent. It's an issue of cultural relativism, justifying your own actions based open the assumption that somebody is genuinely different than you. That an alcoholic is a completely different type of person, that if you were in the same situations you wouldn't turn to alcohol. It isn't fair to deny him care if you don't know the context, and even with the context of him just liking to drink, is it fair to make him pay for his own healthcare?

This brings me to my second point which is a lot easier to articulate. Denying someone care because they brought their problems upon themselves is a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? How about the guy that ate unhealthy for all his life, suddenly he has a heart attack, should he have to pay? By the same logic that girl was using, yes. He chose to live unhealthy and so it's his own problem. How about if someone "chooses" to go skiing and then crashes. They have a broken leg, who's paying for it? Personally I'd like to know that even if I do something stupid the healthcare system will always be there for me.

So this is just my humble opinion, feel free to comment if you have anything to add or whatever. Anyway I hope you enjoyed this very special episode of "What's the Point?".