Access to healthcare is a fundamental medical ethics issue that has been debated and has agitated much intensive concern in the current global world. Notably, in the United States, most individuals find it challenging to reconcile the facts associated with social justice. For instance, around 35 million individuals, particularly unemployed and dependents, lack basic healthcare insurance coverage. Thus, most healthcare institutions and government agencies constantly need help to keep pace with the anticipated healthcare delivery amid the consistency of budget constraints. There has been an increased debate on an equitable and fair distribution of healthcare resources and treatment services to the patient and the entire community (Reddy et al., 2020). Thus, while the acquisition of healthcare is agitated and considered a fundamental human right, the truth is that most individual across the globe faces significant barriers while advocating for and seeking medical care. Herein, access to healthcare services is far from equitability and legitimacy, raising the question of justice. Various reasons have agitated me to choose and focus on this ethical issue.
For instance, daily, most individuals who work in the healthcare sector, the patient’s friends, and families are anticipated to make complex ethical and moral decisions relating to healthcare access. In this case, the ethical concern is the lack of informed consent and patient autonomy. In the healthcare business, challenging problems come up all the time. They can be about patients’ rights, specific medical procedures, standard practices, or how hospitals are run (Stoll et al., 2020). One quick way to solve a moral problem in healthcare is to make choices for people who cannot do it for themselves. Other moral problems, like the reasons for and against physician-assisted suicide and the legalization of abortion, may need a more systematic way to solve them. The actions taken in healthcare moral problems clarify what is right and wrong. Decisions made today could have a significant impact on the future healthcare system. In the healthcare business, managers and executives set and stick to rules of behaviour that define, outline, and punish unethical behaviour.
Concurrently differences and disparities in social and economic background are one of the primary features which agitate the ethical issues in access to healthcare. Notably, intensive, high–quality medical treatment is occasionally out of reach for most individuals who hail from a disadvantaged background. This is rare and difficult for the minority and individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds to access quality medical treatment which can satisfy their care adequately. The poor and disadvantaged groups’ healthcare is negatively affected by these imbalances, and thus, they face the existing socioeconomic prevalence and disparities (Grote & Berens, 2020). This monetary barrier necessitates a reassessment of healthcare systems to guarantee their accessibility and affordability for all and to address ethical concerns about putting profits before patients’ needs.
Moreover, rural and underserved populations face many geographical disparities, which raises ethical concerns. Notably, most individuals from this region face many problems that limit them from accessing timely and specialized healthcare, resulting in healthcare disparities. The ethical consideration, in this case, revolves around the dynamic which can be agitated by the healthcare provider to ensure equitable access to healthcare equitable, access, to healthcare services regardless of the area or the geographical position.
Pro-argument
Adequate access to healthcare is a fundamental ethical consideration that necessitates critical consideration from dynamic angles. For instance, from the perception of justice and fairness, equal access to healthcare is a critical human right that is generative and fundamental. Herein healthcare delivery should be universal irrespective of individual socioeconomic status. Notably, denying individual access to healthcare based on financial disparities implicates social inequality, violating the fundamental principle of fairness and equity. Moreover, adequate access to healthcare promotes the principle of beneficence and non-maleficence as it promotes individual well-being, hence reducing the unnecessary suffering of the patients. Concurrently access to healthcare insinuates the principle of autonomy and respect for the person as the patient are given the idea to make autonomous decision hence making perfect choice relating to their health.
Arguments supporting fundamental access to healthcare are aligned with various critical ethical theories. For instance, the utilitarianism theory implicates the promotion of happiness and well-being, which agitates the promotion of healthcare and the individual’s well-being. Moreover, Rawls’ theory of justice and fairness implicate the criticality of inducing equal distribution of resources and opportunities for the individual to access universal healthcare.
Con Arguments
There are several moral arguments against providing healthcare to all people. One possible argument’s basis is libertarianism, which places a premium on personal freedom and rejects heavy-handed government regulation. The implication is that people’s rights could be interfered with if they are forced to pay for or access healthcare. The idea has triggered some people to see mandatory healthcare contributions as unjust. Herein it increases healthcare spending and reduces the individual incentive to make an appropriate and informed decision relating to their well-being.
. Because healthcare is a commodity, critics may also claim that government involvement in the sector reduces the incentive for competition and innovation. Finally, many argue that limited resources should be given in various ways based on individuals’ relative merits and contributions to society.
Several ethical theories strengthen the arguments against providing universal healthcare. For instance, libertarianism emphasizes protecting individual rights to private property and freedom. In support of less government involvement, it argues against mandatory healthcare contributions that could be seen as coercive and intrusive. Libertarians often cite laissez-faire capitalism as an example of a theory that defends the efficacy and efficiency of market systems. They argue that more healthcare innovation and quality result from unrestricted market competition.
My current stance
Access to healthcare has many ethical issues that can hinder proper healthcare delivery. Herein effectively addressing these issues requires an appropriate and multifaceted approach that entails collaborative policy reforms with the expert and society. Thereof, by upholding equitable access to healthcare, it’s easier for the community to uphold the principle of medical ethics and instigates the promotion of social justice, which can vividly improve the entire healthcare of the population.
References
Grote, T., & Berens, P. (2020). On the ethics of algorithmic decision-making in healthcare. Journal of medical ethics, 46(3), 205-211.. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105586
Reddy, S., Allan, S., Coghlan, S., & Cooper, P. (2020). A governance model for the application of AI in health care. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 27(3), 491–497. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocz192
Stoll, J., Müller, J. A., & Trachsel, M. (2020). Ethical issues in online psychotherapy: A narrative review. Frontiers in psychiatry, 10, 993. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00993
write