argumentative essay on is healthcare a basic human right

Exploring what works, what doesn’t, and why.

Healthcare is a human right – but not in the United States

• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share on WhatsApp
• Share through Email

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson in June is just the latest blow to health rights in the United States. National medical associations in the U.S. agree that abortion is essential to reproductive healthcare. So why would abortion not be protected as such? Because the U.S. does not, and never has, protected a right to health.  

Good health is the foundation of a person’s life and liberty. Injury and disease are always disruptive, and sometimes crippling. We might have to stop working, cancel plans, quarantine, hire help, and in cases of long-term disability, build whole new support systems to accommodate a new normal.

The U.S. remains the only high-income nation in the world without universal access to healthcare. However, the U.S. has signed and ratified one of the most widely adopted international treaties that includes the duty to protect the right to life. Under international law, the right to life simply means that humans have a right to live, and that nobody can try to kill another. Healthcare, the United Nations says, is an essential part of that duty. In 2018, the U.N. Committee on Civil and Political Rights said the right to life cannot exist without equal access to affordable healthcare services (including in prisons), mental health services, and notably, access to abortion. The U.N. committee mentioned health more than a dozen times in its statement on the right to life.

Sign up for Harvard Public Health

Delivered to your inbox weekly.

• Email address By clicking “Subscribe,” you agree to receive email communications from Harvard Public Health.
• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The bottom line is: the U.S. can’t claim to protect life if it fails to protect health. And it has consistently failed on all three of the U.N.’s measures— the latest being access to abortion.

In the U.S., our debates around healthcare, and especially abortion, are hampered by a lack of right to health. Instead, the Supreme Court in 1973 protected access to abortion through the rights to privacy and due process, not health. Privacy is mentioned only twice by the U.N. committee commentary on the right to life.

Since Dobbs, several state legislatures have declared it fair game to criminalize abortion procedures even in cases where pregnancy threatens maternal health or life. Despite ample evidence that restrictive abortion laws lead to spikes in maternal mortality and morbidity—core public health indicators—the Court prior to the Dobb’s decision has defended abortion as merely a matter of privacy, not health or life. We know this is a myth. Abortion is deeply tied to the ability to stay healthy and in some cases, alive.

Regardless, our political parties remain deeply polarized on access to healthcare, including abortion. But lawmakers should know there is historical backing in the U.S. for elevating a right to health. None other than U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt, first proposed healthcare as a human right in his State of the Union address in 1944, as part of his ‘Second Bill of Rights.’ His list featured aspirational economic and social guarantees to the American people, like the right to a decent home and, of course, the right to adequate medical care.

Eleanor Roosevelt later took the Second Bill of Rights to the U.N., where it contributed to the right to health being included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The right to health is now accepted international law, and is part of numerous treaties, none of which the U.S. Senate has seen fit to ratify. The U.S. conservative movement has historically declared itself averse to adopting rights that might expand government function and responsibility. In contrast, state legislatures in red states are keen to expand government responsibility when it comes to abortion. The conservative movement condemns government interference in the delivery of healthcare—except when it comes to reproductive health. The American Medical Association has called abortion bans a “direct attack” on medicine, and a “brazen violation of patients’ rights to evidence-based reproductive health services.”

Excepting access to abortion, U.S. lawmakers have largely left healthcare to the markets, rather than government. True, the government funds programs like Medicaid and Medicare but these programs vary significantly in quality and access by state, falling far short of providing fair, equitable, universal access to good healthcare.

The only two places where the U.S. government accepts some responsibility for the provision of healthcare are 1) in prisons and mental health facilities; and 2) in the military. While healthcare services in the U.S. prison system are notoriously deficient, they nevertheless exist and are recognized as an entitlement, underpinning the right to life. As an example, in 2005 a federal court seized control of the failing healthcare system in California’s Department of Corrections citing preventable deaths. In the military, free healthcare is an entitlement, and the quality of that care is deemed good enough even for the U.S. president.

So why doesn’t everyone in the U.S. have the same rights?

It is an uphill battle in a country that sees health and healthcare as a private matter for markets and individuals to navigate. But if we want to improve public health in the U.S. we need to start legislating healthcare as a right—and recognize that achieving the highest possible standards of public health is a legitimate government function.

photo: Tony Gutierrez / AP Photo

More in Equity

When death doesn’t count

Periods and patriarchy

For Black Americans, homeownership can mean better health

Health Care is a Right, not a Privilege

“If you have your health, you have everything,” the classic saying goes. This is obviously not perfectly accurate, as many healthy people certainly do not have everything. However, it does reflect the connection that the right to health has to other human rights, and the interdependency that all human rights have with each other. Poor health can keep us from going to school or to work, caring for our families, or fully participating in our communities. States are responsible for respecting, protecting and fulfilling their human rights obligations, with international, regional, national and local actors supporting states and holding them accountable. The right to health exists, distinct from traditional political and civil rights, and there is an entire global apparatus built around making the right meaningful and real. I will spend this year exploring and evaluating these systems and human rights frameworks, seeking to understand how to best implement the human right to health.

So what does the right to health mean? States are obligated to fulfill the right through the provision of access to health care and hospitals, safe drinking water and sanitation, and food and housing. It entitles people to a system of disease prevention, treatment and control with access to essential medicines. It extends beyond these entitlements to people’s freedoms, such as the freedom to say no to medical treatment. It relates to a range of health determinants , including gender equality, healthy working conditions, and health-related education. The right to health is not the right to be healthy, which is outside of states’ direct control. This is why it is referred to as the right to the “highest attainable standard” of health. UN bodies, specialized agencies, the private sector, and even health professionals have responsibilities related to the right to health. The nature of businesses’ specific obligations are a bit unclear, and states are ultimately accountable for human rights violations, but there is a growing effort to define human rights standards that are applicable to businesses.

The right to health is idealistic in many ways, but it can be monitored and enforced. Accountability and monitoring take place at national, regional and international levels with involvement from states, NGOs, national human rights institutions, international treaty bodies and UN Special Rapporteurs. At the national level, administrative and political mechanisms contribute to accountability, such as national health policies and budgets. National judicial mechanisms can provide legal remedies to individuals when their rights are violated. Incorporating the right to health into national or subnational laws allows courts to judge violations with direct reference to the ICESCR. For example, Argentinian courts have ruled that the state must guarantee an available supply of antiretroviral drugs to people who are HIV-positive. Additionally, the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa illustrates the ability of NGOs to use advocacy and social mobilization to fight for the right to health in its work for equal access to HIV treatment. In 2001, the Pretoria High Court ruled in favor of the Treatment Action Campaign and held that government restrictions on the drug nevirapine were unconstitutional, since the drug was proven to be effective but the government decided that it could only be distributed at two research sites. The Constitutional Court upheld the Pretoria ruling, stating that the government’s policy did not meet South Africa’s constitutional obligations to provide access to health care that “takes account of pressing social needs.” The government then removed nevirapine restrictions at public hospitals and clinics and created a comprehensive program to progressively realize the rights of pregnant women to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission.

Through this series of blog posts, I will write about the usefulness of the human rights framework to global health endeavors. I strongly believe that, as the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights and WHO have stated , “The right to health is a fundamental part of our human rights and of our understanding of a life in dignity.” Physical and mental health allow adults to work and children to learn. The right to health cannot be realized without the realization of other rights that exist at the root of poverty, such as the rights to food, housing and water. Through exploring victories and pitfalls, I want to improve our understanding of how to best implement the right to health in practice. Achieving health equity worldwide requires innovative and interdisciplinary work, which necessitates a comprehensive understanding of international human rights law and governance.

Julia Kaufman is a T’18 Alumna and a 17′-18′ Human Rights Scholar at the Institute.

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Health Health Care Policy

Healthcare: Is Healthcare a Basic Human Right

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• Antibiotics
• Sexual Health
• Cervical Cancer

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

Advertisement

Health (care) and human rights: a fundamental conditions approach

• Published: 01 August 2016
• Volume 37 , pages 259–274, ( 2016 )

Cite this article

• S. Matthew Liao 1  

1765 Accesses

6 Citations

10 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Many international declarations state that human beings have a human right to health care. However, is there a human right to health care? What grounds this right, and who has the corresponding duties to promote this right? Elsewhere, I have argued that human beings have human rights to the fundamental conditions for pursuing a good life. Drawing on this fundamental conditions approach of human rights, I offer a novel way of grounding a human right to health care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Health care and human rights: against the split duty gambit

Gopal Sreenivasan

Access to Healthcare

Health care as a universal right.

Rui Nunes, Sofia B. Nunes & Guilhermina Rego

My notion of the fundamental conditions for pursuing a good life will prompt some to think of Martha Nussbaum’s central capabilities approach . Elsewhere, I have explained in greater detail how the two views differ. See, e.g., [ 3 , 4 ]. All too briefly, the hallmark of Nussbaum’s approach is her emphasis on our opportunities to choose to do certain things, i.e., capabilities, rather than on what we actually choose to do, i.e., functionings. The problem is that a significant number of human rights cannot be adequately explained in terms of capabilities. For example, capabilities do not seem adequate for explaining what might be called status rights, which are rights that protect our moral status as persons. In the UDHR, the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law (Article 6); the right to equal protection before the law (Article 7); the right against arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile (Article 9); the right to a fair and public hearing (Article 10); the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty (Article 11) are all status rights, as they protect our moral status as persons. If Nussbaum’s approach were able to explain these rights, it would imply that one can sometimes choose not to exercise these rights, since capabilities are concerned with our real opportunities to choose. But it does not seem that one can sometimes choose whether or not to exercise these rights. For instance, it does not seem that one can sometimes choose not to be recognized everywhere as a person before the law; choose not to have equal protection before the law; choose to be arrested arbitrarily; choose to have an unfair hearing; and choose to be presumed guilty. Hence, capabilities do not seem particularly well-suited to explain these rights. In contrast, the fundamental conditions approach can explain status rights. When we pursue the basic activities, conflicts with others are bound to arise. If and when such conflicts arise, we need guarantees that we would be treated fairly and equally. Fair trial, presumption of innocence, equal protection before the law, not arrested arbitrarily, and so on serve to ensure that we are treated fairly and equally. As such, they are things that human beings qua human beings need whatever they qua individuals might need in order to pursue the basic activities. As such, the fundamental conditions approach can explain why there are these human rights.

Rights could also have non-instrumental importance in addition to having instrumental importance.

See, e.g., Ronald Dworkin [ 5 ] and Robert Nozick [ 6 ].

See Elselijn Kingma [ 12 ] for a discussion of Boorse regarding this issue.

See, e.g., James Griffin [ 13 , p. 101].

See, e.g., Richard Wilkinson and Michael Marmot [ 14 ].

See, e.g., Judith Jarvis Thomson [ 18 ] and John Arthur [ 19 ].

The term “deep partiality” comes from James Griffin [ 21 , p. 86].

United Nations. General Assembly. 1948. The universal declaration of human rights . Resolution 217(III) A of December 10, 1948. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights . Accessed 14 July 2016.

United Nations. General Assembly. 1966. International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights . Resolution 2200A (XXI) of December 16 1966. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx . Accessed 19 July 2016.

Liao, S.M. 2015. Human rights as fundamental conditions for a good life. In Philosophical foundations of human rights , ed. R. Cruft, S.M. Liao, and M. Renzo, 79–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Liao, S.M. 2015. The right to be loved . New York: Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Dworkin, R. 1977. Taking rights seriously . London: Duckworth.

Google Scholar  

Nozick, R. 1974. Anarchy, state and utopia . Oxford: Blackwell.

Feinberg, J. 1970. The nature and value of rights. In Bioethics and human rights: A reader for health professionals , ed. E.L. Bandman, and B. Bandman, 19–31. Boston: Little, Brown.

US Human Genome Project. 1997. Genetic issues in mental retardation: A report on the arc’s human genome education project. The Arc 1(1). http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc716103/m1/17/ . Accessed 20 July 2016.

Dominguez, K., A. Penman-Aguilar, M.-H. Chang, R. Moonesinghe, T. Castellanos, A. Rodriguez-Lainz, and R. Schieber. 2015. Vital signs: Leading causes of death, prevalence of diseases and risk factors, and use of health services among Hispanics in the United States—2009–2013. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 64(17): 469–478.

Daniels, N. 2008. Just health: Meeting health needs fairly . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Boorse, C. 1975. On the distinction between disease and illness. Philosophy of Public Affairs 5(1): 49–68.

Kingma, E. 2007. What is it to be healthy? Analysis 67(294): 128–133.

Article   Google Scholar  

Griffin, J. 2008. On human rights . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wilkinson, R., and M. Marmot (eds.). 2003. The social determinants of health: The solid facts , 2nd ed. Copenhagen: World Health Organization.

Marks, S.P. 2013. Emergence and scope of the right to health. In Advancing the human right to health , ed. J.M. Zuniga, S.P. Marks, and L.O. Gostin, 3–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cranston, M. 1973. What are human rights? London: Bodley Head.

Gewirth, A. 1996. The community of rights . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Thomson, J.J. 1971. A defense of abortion. Philosophy & Public Affairs 1(1): 47–66.

Arthur, J. 1997. Rights and the duty to bring aid. In Ethics in practice , ed. H. LaFollette, 596–604. Oxford: Blackwell.

Singer, P. 1997. Famine, affluence, and morality. In Ethics in practice , ed. H. LaFollette, 585–595. Oxford: Blackwell.

Griffin, J. 1996. Value judgement: Improving our ethical beliefs . Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dan Brudney, Collin O’Neil, Wibke Gruetjen, and audiences at the Conference on “Is Health Care a Human Right?” at the University of Chicago and the Working Papers in Ethics and Moral Psychology at Mount Sinai for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

New York University, 41 East 11th Street, Floor 7, New York, NY, 10003, USA

S. Matthew Liao

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Matthew Liao .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Liao, S.M. Health (care) and human rights: a fundamental conditions approach. Theor Med Bioeth 37 , 259–274 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-016-9373-9

Download citation

Published : 01 August 2016

Issue Date : August 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-016-9373-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Right to health
• Right to health care
• Human rights
• Social determinants of health
• Christopher Boorse
• Norman Daniels
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Is Health Care a Human Right?

• Post author: Lisa J. Laplante
• Post published: November 2, 2009
• Post category: Health Care / Human Rights / International Law & Diplomacy
• Post comments: 10 Comments

For example, while in Peru I received a grant from the Ford Foundation to conduct research on the right to mental health for survivors of the country’s internal armed conflict.  In the course of the study , I interviewed many government officials, advocates from non-governmental organizations and ordinary citizens.  None of these people questioned the basic premise of my study which was that health is a human right, as enshrined in international treaties such as the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). 

Article 12 of the ICESCR provides that “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.” The Covenant has been ratified by 160 countries in the world, but not the United States.  The 1946 Constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes that the right to health is a fundamental right “without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.”  Significantly, the United Nations General Assembly (composed of representatives from 192 member countries  adopted a resolution in 2003 reaffirming the right to health.

Professor Eleanor D. Kinney, Co-director of the Hall Center for Law and Health at Indiana University School of Law conducted a study in 2004 found 67.5% of countries to include the right to health  in their national constitution.  The United States is the only industrialized nation in the world not to guarantee access to health care , through universal health care, as a right of citizenship.   

Given this global recognition of the right to health, I often wonder why Americans seem so afraid of moving in this direction and catching up with our peers.  Why is health reform so controversial? 

Is it the cost?   Maybe, except we permit millions of tax dollars to be spent daily on bank bail-outs, wars in foreign countries, emergency aid for developing nations, and even stimulus money to build our national infrastructure like highways and bridges.   One estimate puts the health reform cost at $1.05 trillion over 10 years, which is almost as much as we will spend on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by 2010 ($1.3 trillion).  However, since health costs currently outpace the growth of the economy, this initial up-front investment would lead to long term savings .

Is it a misunderstanding of what universal means?   People often believe that the right to health means everyone will be able to demand perfect health — the “right to be healthy.”  But the ICESCR recognizes that the right to health is subject to “progressive implementation” and strives towards a minimum acceptable baseline that is attainable.

Is it a mistrust of government?  Some speculate that health care access and quality will decline if there is universal health care.  But more and more reports on comparative systems in places like Canada, France, the United Kingdom and Germany are debunking this claim.  National Public Radio covered the story of one American middle aged couple had to move to Mexico because his childhood polio problems prevented him from working, and she was denied coverage because she survived cancer twenty years ago—they literally could not afford to stay here (even though he was a retired military officer).  Once in Mexico, they were enrolled in the government health plan (which is tax dollar funded although the couple paid a few hundred dollars annually).  They reported that the care was “excellent.”

Is there an unwavering belief in the free market?   Perhaps, but it seems that leaving universal health care to the market is not working.  According to the U.S. Census Bureau , nearly 47 million Americans, or 20 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2008.

Some opponents to a government response to this market failure accuse the administration of being socialist.  This reaction really confuses me given that we seem to accept that certain public goods are so essential to our national well-being that the government involvement makes sense: public schools, national highways, police and fire fighters, libraries, to name just a few.  Are we then already a socialist country?

But to get clarity on this last issue, I asked my Chilean colleague Professor Pablo Contreras, while he was here during the student exchange with Hurtado University  how it is that his country has been able to sustain political support for a universal health care system.

I began, “Chileans don’t worry that it is socialist?” 

Certainly, Latin America was the Cold War’s physical battlefield.  General Pinochet, himself, ruled Chile with an iron fist for seventeen years as part of his crusade against communist leftist groups.  People still suffer the loss of their loved ones who were disappeared, tortured and killed as a result of this internal war.  So I figured that if anybody might be spooked by expansive government programs despite their thriving capitalism, wouldn’t it be the Chileans?

I was wrong.

As he explained, “Despite the fact of the political differences, there is a consensus in order to secure some minimum living standards. There is, of course, disagreement in the way that the State applies this particular public policy but that hasn’t been an obstacle to develop an intelligent system to secure minimal health standards. In some way, it’s a correction of capitalism.”

The Chilean approach begins with the principle that health is a human right.  But it is also practical. To compete in a global market, they understand that universal education is not enough. Certainly, a well educated—but sick—person is not productive.

Could our resistance to universal health care be simply a matter of ideology?  America–the land of opportunity— assumes a self-reliant folk will pull themselves up by the bootstraps Horatio Alger style.   We don’t tolerate “free loaders” and “system abusers” (not my words, but rather terms I heard used recently by opponents of the proposed health care reform). 

But hold on.  Aren’t the millions of people without insurance just like you and me? Maybe you have once been without insurance, or know someone in that situation?  They are usually ordinary citizens who followed all the rules, tried to be contributing and upstanding members of society—but alas, their bootstraps snapped.   You can hear their stories on National Public Radio: self employed, just out of college, excluded because of a previous medical condition, recently unemployed, retired but too young for medicare….the list goes on.  They were denied insurance or could not afford insurance which de facto translates into their having no access to health care.      

Insurance, of course, is a business that makes decisions based on the bottom line and not from the perspective that health is a human right (“human”, i.e., living organism that needs health to survive or will die).  Yet, somehow our national debate is not about access to quality health-care facilities, goods, services and programmes (the United Nations standard) but rather mandated access to health insurance, with a possible government option that will compete with the private sector.   It seems the market has trumped our rights in directing our national debate.

So now I am wondering:  what will be the consequence for those families who defiantly choose to put their precious resources towards essentials like food and housing instead of paying their monthly insurance premiums?   Isn’t there a reason why they can’t afford insurance now?

The ideological starting point of our national health reform debate could lead to some rather strange outcomes.  As the world looks on puzzled, they may be wondering if Horatio will ever repair his bootstraps.

You Might Also Like

Wisconsin to allow same-sex marriage, the role of foreign perceptions in zivotofsky v. kerry, a new era: the rule of law in the trump administration, this post has 10 comments.

It’ not a “right,” but it is a common good. For the same amount of dollars we are spending today (16.5% of GDP) we could provide first-class Cheney-care to 100% of our population. Including those in BadgerCare and Medicaid, and those who are uninsured and under-insured. . It’d be a Medicare-for-all system that would eliminate the insurance bureaucracy waste (31% of our costs) and we’d spend it on patient care instead. We’d pay for the system through our national infrastructure (taxes) and eliminate this cost for businesses. They could spend the savings on keeping jobs in the US instead of outsourcing to countries already with universal healthcare. A bailout for 100% of our businesses, not just the banks and car manufacturers. . But instead, we are spending more time and money trying to avoid doing it the right way, than it would cost to do it correctly up front.

Many problems with your comments! We didn’t “permit” the use of bailouts — they were just done. We had no say in the matter. Yes we have mistrust in the government — why? Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Post Office are all going broke.

Why a minimum amount of care – isn’t it a “right”?

And it is not 47 million. Even Obama finally admitted that. Out of the 47 million, nearly 1/3 are upper class and need no help with plenty of cash to buy any insurance they may want. Then, another 1/3 are eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, etc., but fail to sign up for some reason. Then there are millions who are immigrants and not eligible. Also millions of young 20’s and 30’s who are single and could care less about insurance. They don’t need any and don’t want any.

This leaves maybe 8 million or so that have a problem….not 47 million. Very significant! Why trash the greatest health system in the world..bar none..when the new bill is not going to cut costs…and that was the whole intent of the bill. Cut Cost! And don’t blame insurance companies…their costs are tied to the medical profession costs. If hospital stays go up, doctor fees go up, MRI’s cost a couple thousand now…the insurance company must raise their fees to cover these increased costs…no choice!

I should have added that if health care is necessary and a “right”…why isn’t water or housing, or utilities a “right”. We pay for them but they are a necessity! Just a thought!

I’m trying to think of another right that must, by its very definition, be provided by someone else. There’s a right to bear arms, but that doesn’t mean government has to provide it for you if you can’t afford it yourself. (Can you imagine the uproar if gun welfare were suggested?). Rights to life, speech, belief, conscience, liberty, property, self-protection–none of those are provided by another person.

The right to counsel would seem to be an example, although that has only relatively recently been read as mandating government-provided counsel if a person cannot afford one. Further, the purpose for that right is largely to give the person the most protection possible from the government taking away other of the person’s rights. Similarly, the other due process rights are safeguards against the deprivation of other rights. I don’t see how those are comparable to health care. That a person may die without health care is not an example of government depriving that person of a right to life.

To say that people have a right to health care does not require government to provide it for them, it only requires that government not interfere with it or take it away without due process. I see government-provided health care as a privilege, then, not a right. Many people think it’s an extremely important service for government to provide, but it’s not a right.

To add a little to my comment-

My interpretation of the limited extent of a “right” to health care is shown by the understanding that a person incarcerated by the state has the right to have health care provided by the state. In other words, only when the government has acted to limit a person’s access to health care does the government have the obligation to provide that health care to the person.

Nice start, Lisa. It’s a fascinating question.

I don’t know that an examination of the systems in Canada, Great Britain, etc., “debunks” concerns about government provided health care. I tend to agree with John Major. The American system, he says, provides a much higher quality of care but the British system provides care on a more egalitarian basis.

And that’s where I start to wonder what work is done by referring to health care (much less “health”) as a right. As Tom points out, calling health care a right implies a corresponding duty on the part of someone else to provide it. Because that duty cannot possibly be unlimited, we must now talk about how much to extract from providers and taxpayers in order to provide how much to recipients.

This becomes a rather pragmatic discussion in which empirical claims matter a great deal. The language of rights – with its connotation of a claim that trumps most other considerations or that can somehow be expressed as an enforceable entitlement – does not get us very far – although as I’ll explain in a moment, it may help a little.

Returning to that pragmatic and empirical discussion, my own sense is that the US system provides superior care to the vast majority of citizens and leads the world in innovation. It seems to me highly likely that the amount of money we spend and the market incentives for specialists, medical device manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies.

Believing this, I am concerned that top down systems will stifle innovation and lead to rationing of care based not on what patients demand but on what political rent seekers are able to claim.

This is not to say that there aren’t problems to address. One is access. It’s not as widespread a problem as some suggest, but it is nevertheless a problem. This is where, in my mind, we may be helped a bit by the concept of a “right” or, as I would prefer, the imperative of compassion. We will allow those who don’t have a car to walk, but we aren’t going to just let people die.

Resolving the problem, however, seems to me to require consideration of what structural reforms will do to supply and the need for persons to take responsibility for their own care. This is a far more complex question than simple disdain for free loaders.

The second problem area is efficiency. We don’t really have a market for health care and the anomolous connection of insurance to employment, combined with the unintended effects of regulation and the odd notion that health care should almost always be paid for by someone else, creates further market distortions.

How to address those problems are difficult questions about which reasonable people will differ. We wrestle with them now when we talk about Medicaid, Medicare, anti-patient dumping laws, etc. But, as much as we lawyers like them, I don’t think “rights” helps us much with the answers.

Activists are blinded by ideology, when cash works better. We are losing the health care issue not because we failed to mobilize, but because we fought with logic rather than bribery.

We gave good arguments while the medical-industrial complex gave cash dollars. Over $125 million from insurance, hospital, pharma, and medical device manufacturers in 2008 alone. We were smart, they were smarter. We are now on the outside looking in, and no amount of head-scratching will alter the fact that we were simply outspent.

In this situation we were better off with no bill rather than a bad bill, but we didn’t give the cash to make that happen.

Politicians prefer bribes, so the insurance CEOs give cash instead.

Logic is so “yesterday,” and the medical-complex bribes will now keep coming in as long as reform does not happen. Future cash motivates politicians better than historical cash, and that’s why they also prefer private over public services.

There are three critical messages to take from this:

1. Don’t stop here. We must mobilize to throw the b*stards out. Forced term limits is our next “public option.” Politicians must see an immediate response to their favoring money over matter; of selling the country to the highest bidder against the best interests of the nation. All politicians who vote for the current health care bill must be unelected in 2010!

2. That doesn’t free the Republicans of blame, because they will vote against single-payer when it comes to the table. They are as corrupt; they just allowed the D’s to take this hit. But the R’s must also be replaced. We must rid our system of all miscreants.

3. Recognize that this enemy — bribery — is deeply imbedded in our political culture. Over 80% of congressional decisions will favor money over people. It is behind the recent spiral of the nation’s economy. It will remain behind the massive transfer of wealth that eclipses our democracy and capitalism. Our country can no longer sustain political corruption or the massive wealth inequality that has resulted.

If activists can be faulted for anything it is for their naivety. There is only one solution to this quagmire, and that’s to get the private campaign dollars out of the public electoral system. Though in its extreme (forced) it does not pass Constitutional muster, a reasonable solution is available: Optional public funding of campaigns.

CALL TO ACTION: All activists and organizations must ask their congressional members to support the Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752 and H.R. 1826). Healthcare activists must immediately take on this second issue, because it affects all others. We can no longer afford to lose issues because of bribery. See: http://www.fairelectionsnow.org

This bill provides for optional public funding of campaigns for any politician who prefers not to take private or special interest money. A politician who prefers private money can remain on the current system. It is funded by a surcharge on federal contracts. A candidate needs only to acquire a preset number of community signatures to qualify. In Arizona and Maine 70% of their legislators ran and won under public funding, and that included R’s and D’s and Libertarians alike. And it passes constitutional muster, so don’t accept otherwise from your congressman.

With regard to the debate about what may properly be called a “right,” I am not convinced by the argument that something isn’t a “right” when it must be provided by someone else. To me, it seems like a way of disguising the real issue rather than taking it head-on, because, if you step back and think about it, many of the concepts that we think of as rights — due process, for instance, in both civil and criminal courts and other decision-making bodies; or property rights — _do_ require that something be provided by someone else; it’s just that we don’t think of those services (i.e., court systems, or police and court protection of property owners’ right to exclude others) as “something,” in the way we think of health care as a consumer good. But that’s not because of any inherent difference in the concepts of due process or property rights, and health care rights, at least I don’t understand how so. Instead, it’s just another way of saying that health care is not something that we have considered to be the job of government, in the past. I.e., isn’t saying that health care isn’t a “right” really just a restatement of the position that due process and property are interests that our society and our government must be organized to protect, while health care is not? The real argument is there, around that question, of why health care is not the sort of service that should be fundamental to our government.

Indeed, as Lisa points out, most of the rest of the world seems to find the idea of health care rights not even very interesting or controversial. Of course one would want a fundamental principle of one’s government to be the universal provision of an essential service like health care. Why not? Isn’t health care like fire prevention? Like property protection? Again, explain to me, why not?

Of course, deciding that it’s a right (or, I guess Rick prefers, a duty of compassion) does not give us much help in the debate about how, specifically, to organize our society so that our health care system provides adequate health care for the human beings who live here, while not squelching innovation in medical science and technology. Those are difficult and interesting questions.

Thanks for your thoughtful article. For anyone interested in finding out more about the growing U.S. movement for the human right to health care (and other economic and social rights such as housing, education, and work with dignity), please check out the website of the National Economic and Social Rights Initiative (NESRI at http://www.nesri.org ). Our Human Right to Health Program works with partners across the country and has published a number of articles and reports on human rights principles for U.S. health care reform.

Sure it is a right. We have the right to buy insurance or healthcare services.

That does not mean that it should be provided at taxpayer expense.

Just because we have the right to bear arms does not mean that the Goverment has to pay for our guns.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

📕 Studying HQ

120+ controversial health care essay topics, dr. wilson mn.

• August 3, 2022
• Essay Topics and Ideas , Samples

If you are a nursing student looking for medical argumentative essay topics, or health essay topics in general, you understand how crucial it is to choose controversial subjects you can explore in-depth. Your grade will depend not just on the content, but also how convincingly you support your stance through research and credible sources. That’s why it’s vital to pick topics that fascinate you and make your essay more engaging to write.(120+ Controversial Health Care Essay Topics)

When seeking healthcare or physical health argumentative essay topics for college or high school, consider aspects that provoke debate like alternative medicine instead of mainstream treatments, the role of pharmaceutical companies, or whether routine childhood vaccines should be mandatory. Mental health care accessibility, managing terminal illnesses, public health policies’ effectiveness, or the pros and cons of telemedicine also offer fertile ground.

Another avenue is examining ethical issues within the health field that nurses and doctors face, like prioritizing patient well-being over their wishes, rationing limited resources, confidentiality and privacy concerns, medical practices that conflict with personal beliefs, or the ethics of an organ transplantation committee deciding who will receive an organ.

It’s often wise to choose a topic ideas that connect to your own identity, environment, or experiences. You might explore health disparities among different populations, argue for promoting healthy lifestyles and inclusivity, or discuss impacts of issues like obesity, pollution’s role in disease, or health insurance costs.

For a master’s level paper, you could compare and contrast two healthcare systems, analyze a pandemic’s effects, delve into environmental health factors like air quality, or evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of measures like an assisted suicide mandate.

No matter the topic, select one that resonates with you and suits your needs for this next paper. Avoid overly broad subjects until you have strong writing skills and critical thinking abilities. With laser focus through tools like a mind map, you can craft an argumentative essay that showcases your knowledge in the field of medical research while supporting your arguments using credible sources.

If you are running out of time on your research paper, feel free to request for writing services from our professional writers.

Here are some ideas for your next paper:

What You'll Learn

Strong Medical Argumentative Essay Topics

To help you get started, here are some strong Healthcare argumentative essay topics to consider:

• Is there a nurse shortage in the United States? If so, what are the causes, and what can be done to mitigate it?
• What are the benefits and drawbacks of various types of Nurse staffing models?
• What are the implications of the current opioid epidemic on nurses and patients?
• Are there any ethical considerations that should be taken into account when providing care to terminally ill patients?
• What are the most effective ways to prevent or treat healthcare-acquired infections?
• Should nurses be allowed to prescribe medication? If so, under what circumstances?
• How can nurses best advocate for their patients’ rights?
• What is the role of nurses in disaster relief efforts?
• The high cost of healthcare in the United States.
• The debate over whether or not healthcare is a human right.
• The role of the government in providing healthcare.
• The pros and cons of the Affordable Care Act.
• The impact of healthcare on the economy.
• The problem of access to healthcare in rural areas.
• The debate over single-payer healthcare in the United States.
• The pros and cons of private health insurance.
• The rising cost of prescription drugs in the United States.
• The use of medical marijuana in the United States.
• The debates over end-of-life care and assisted suicide in the United States.

As you continue, thestudycorp.com has the top and most qualified writers to help with any of your assignments. All you need to do is place an order with us.

controversial health research topics to write

There is no shortage of controversial healthcare topics to write about. From the high cost of insurance to the debate over medical marijuana, there are plenty of issues to spark an interesting and thought-provoking argumentative essay.

Here are some Controversial healthcare argumentative essay topics to get you started:

1. Is healthcare a right or a privilege?

2. Should the government do more to regulate the healthcare industry?

3. What is the best way to provide quality healthcare for all?

4. Should medical marijuana be legalized?

5. How can we control the rising cost of healthcare?

6. Should cloning be used for medical research?

7. Is it ethical to use stem cells from embryos?

8. How can we improve access to quality healthcare?

9. What are the implications of the Affordable Care Act?

10. What role should pharmaceutical companies play in healthcare?

11. The problems with the current healthcare system in the United States.

12. The need for reform of the healthcare system in the United States.

Great healthcare argumentative essay topics

Healthcare is a controversial and complex issue, and there are many different angles that you can take when writing an argumentative essay on the topic. Here are some great healthcare argumentative essay topics to get you started:

• Should the government provide free or low-cost healthcare to all citizens?
• Is private healthcare better than public healthcare?
• Should there be more regulation of the healthcare industry?
• Are medical costs too high in the United States?
• Should all Americans be required to have health insurance?
• How can the rising cost of healthcare be controlled?
• What is the best way to provide healthcare to aging Americans?
• What role should the government play in controlling the cost of prescription drugs?
• What impact will the Affordable Care Act have on the healthcare system in the United States?

Hot healthcare argumentative essay topics for college

Healthcare is always a hot-button issue. Whether it’s the Affordable Care Act, single-payer healthcare, or something else entirely, there’s always plenty to debate when it comes to healthcare. Here are some great healthcare argumentative essay topics to help get you started.

1. Is the Affordable Care Act working?

2. Should the government do more to provide healthcare for its citizens?

3. Should there be a single-payer healthcare system in the United States?

4. What are the pros and cons of the Affordable Care Act?

5. What impact has the Affordable Care Act had on healthcare costs in the United States?

6. Is the Affordable Care Act sustainable in the long run?

7. What challenges does the Affordable Care Act face?

8. What are the potential solutions to the problems with the Affordable Care Act?

9. Is single-payer healthcare a good idea?

10. What are the pros and cons of single-payer healthcare?

Related articles: 30+ Medical Argumentative Essay Topics for College Students

Argumentative topics related to health care

Healthcare is always an ever-evolving issue. It’s one of those topics that everyone has an opinion on and is always eager to discuss . That’s why it makes for such a great topic for an argumentative essay . If you’re looking for some fresh ideas, here are some great healthcare argumentative essay topics to get you started.

1. Is our healthcare system in need of a complete overhaul?

3. Are rising healthcare costs making it difficult for people to access care?

4. Is our current healthcare system sustainable in the long term?

5. Should we be doing more to prevent disease and promote wellness?

6. What role should the private sector play in providing healthcare?

7. What can be done to reduce the number of errors in our healthcare system?

8. How can we make sure that everyone has access to quality healthcare?

9. What can be done to improve communication and collaboration between different parts of the healthcare system?

10. How can we make sure that everyone has access to the care they need when they need it?

Argumentative essay topics about health

There are many different stakeholders in the healthcare debate, and each one has their own interests and perspectives. Here are some great healthcare argumentative essay topics to get you started:

1. Who should pay for healthcare?

2. Is healthcare a right or a privilege?

3. What is the role of the government in healthcare?

4. Should there be limits on what treatments insurance companies must cover?

5. How can we improve access to healthcare?

6. What are the most effective methods of preventing disease?

7. How can we improve the quality of care in our hospitals?

8. What are the best ways to control costs in the healthcare system?

9. How can we ensure that everyone has access to basic care?

10. What are the ethical implications of rationing healthcare?

Argumentative health essay topics

• Is healthcare a fundamental human right?

2. Should there be limits on medical research using human subjects?

3. Should marijuana be legalized for medicinal purposes?

4. Should the government do more to regulate the use of prescription drugs?

5. Is alternative medicine effective?

6. Are there benefits to using placebos in medical treatment?

7. Should cosmetic surgery be covered by health insurance?

8. Is it ethical to buy organs on the black market?

9. Are there risks associated with taking herbal supplements?

10. Is it morally wrong to end a pregnancy?

11. Should physician-assisted suicide be legal?

12. Is it ethical to test new medical treatments on animals?

13. Should people with terminal illnesses have the right to end their lives?

14. Is it morally wrong to sell organs for transplantation?

15. Are there benefits to using stem cells from embryos in medical research?

16. Is it ethical to use human beings in medical experiments?

17. Should the government do more to fund medical research into cancer treatments?

18. Are there risks associated with genetic engineering of humans?

19. Is it ethical to clones humans for the purpose

Argumentative essays on mental health

• Should there be more focus on mental health in schools?
• Are our current treatments for mental illness effective?
• Are mental health disorders more common now than they were in the past?
• How does social media impact mental health?
• How does trauma impact mental health?
• What are the most effective treatments for PTSD?
• Is therapy an effective treatment for mental illness?
• What causes mental illness?
• How can we destigmatize mental illness?
• How can we better support those with mental illness?
• Should insurance companies cover mental health treatments?
• What are the most effective treatments for depression?
• Should medication be used to treat mental illness?
• What are the most effective treatments for anxiety disorders?
• What are the most effective treatments for OCD?
• What are the most effective treatments for eating disorders?
• What are the most effective treatments for bipolar disorder?
• How can we better support caregivers of those with mental illness?
• What role does stigma play in mental illness?

<image: https://studyinghq.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/image-17-796×1030.png>

Start by filling this short order form order.studyinghq.com

And then follow the progressive flow. 

Having an issue, chat with us here

Cathy, CS. 

New Concept ? Let a subject expert write your paper for You​

Have a subject expert write for you now, have a subject expert finish your paper for you, edit my paper for me, have an expert write your dissertation's chapter, popular topics.

Business StudyingHq Essay Topics and Ideas How to Guides Samples

• Nursing Solutions
• Study Guides
• Free Study Database for Essays
• Privacy Policy
• Writing Service 
• Discounts / Offers 

Study Hub: 

• Studying Blog
• Topic Ideas 
• How to Guides
• Business Studying 
• Nursing Studying 
• Literature and English Studying

Writing Tools  

• Citation Generator
• Topic Generator
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Conclusion Maker
• Research Title Generator
• Thesis Statement Generator
• Summarizing Tool
• Terms and Conditions
• Confidentiality Policy
• Cookies Policy
• Refund and Revision Policy

Our samples and other types of content are meant for research and reference purposes only. We are strongly against plagiarism and academic dishonesty. 

Contact Us:

📧 [email protected]

📞 +15512677917

2012-2024 © studyinghq.com. All rights reserved

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Healthcare and human rights: a reflection

Luca brunelli.

1 Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

2 Primary Children’s Hospital/Intermountain Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

Heather L. Brumberg

3 Department of Pediatrics, Division of Newborn Medicine, New York Medical College, Maria Fareri Children’s Hospital, Valhalla, NY, USA

Erik Fernández y García

4 Department of Pediatrics, Division of General Pediatrics, University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA

Sagori Mukhopadhyay

5 Division of Neonatology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Shetal I. Shah

Danielle e. soranno.

6 Department of Pediatrics, Division of Nephrology, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA

Elise S. Tremblay

7 Division of Endocrinology, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

The declaration that all people have an “inalienable” right to “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” continues to inspire people around the world, despite Thomas Jefferson’s flaws as a slave owner. 1 Less often cited, but nonetheless as visionary, is Jefferson’s observation that “liberty is to the collective body what health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society” . 2 In 1966, during the second convention of the Medical Committee for Human Rights, Martin Luther King Jr. reportedly said that “of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.” Jefferson and King pinned down in stark terms the centrality of health for every individual member of society. Inspired by the vision of these leaders, we propose that physicians in the United States not only need to recognize health as an inalienable human right but must also advocate for equity in healthcare .

The approximately one million physicians in the United States today practice medicine in a system where only part of society, particularly the wealthy, has access to healthcare services. Individual providers may feel little-to-no sway over these structural barriers. How can we address these inequalities? Are we ready to claim the moral high ground that all people deserve healthcare, or do we instead fall victim to prevailing injustices? When utilized for the common good, the influence physicians have in society can foster positive change.

To be a force for good , modern-day physicians need to be willing to acknowledge past errors and abuses of the medical profession. They also need to realize that excellence in the medical sciences does not protect against losing moral authority . At the turn of the twentieth century, German physicians were leaders of the medical profession across the globe for their scientific rigor and clinical acumen. In his poignant book “Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning”, the historian Timothy Snider reminds us of one of the lesser known tragedies of that era: in Nazi Germany, physicians joined the Schutzstaffel (SS) with greater frequency than any other profession. The revelation that the Tuskegee syphilis study (1932–1972) involved withholding treatment from black men with syphilis to observe the natural history of the untreated disease marked one of the darkest moments for the medical sciences. 3 Recently, the ethicist Harriet Washington in her book “Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present” lists gruesome tales of abuse that resulted in medical accolades for the physicians who perpetrated such abuse.

Inequity and racism have been longstanding in our society. The past few years have witnessed a resurgence of reports pointing to these issues. Recent scientific literature suggests that inequity and racism might even be prevalent in our healthcare and academic institutions. 4 - 7 As evidence accumulated that provider bias contributes to poor health outcomes in certain ethnic and socioeconomic groups, 8 , 9 has our research adequately focused on populations most in need? Do we possess the moral courage necessary to confront structural barriers to equitable healthcare?

Some may push back and suggest that it is not a physician’s responsibility to figure out how to achieve social change for equity, 10 but rather this is work cut out for policymakers and politicians. Yet, it is part of our oath and duty to advocate for our patients, whether it be on the individual or societal level. As society’s keepers of human health, our unified conviction and passion for moral integrity, as well as our perspective as frontline healthcare professionals can help change the status quo . 11

Some members of the medical profession have been showing the way. On May 7, 2018 the United States Department of Justice announced a policy that would result in >2000 children being separated from their parents at the United States border. 12 On May 8, 2018 the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Dr. Colleen A. Kraft, unequivocally condemned the policy. AAP policy for many years’ prior has continuously advocated against separation and detention of children. 13 Between May and June 2018, those concerned about the policy, such as former first lady of the United States Laura Bush, 14 relied on the AAP stance for guidance.

Today, provider advocacy is becoming less of a choice and increasingly a moral obligation. We humbly challenge each reader to start by engaging in an advocacy action such as:

• Write (or call) your local representatives. Be clear about a specific issue for which you are advocating. State your position and role in healthcare on your professional letterhead, as well as regional data or a vignette of a patient or family member who exemplifies why change needs to occur. For information on finding your local, state, and federal elected officials, visit: https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials .
• Maintain membership and/or be involved in organizations with advocacy aims, such as the AAP, the American Pediatric Society, the Society for Pediatric Research, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Some organizations provide grants to address the most pressing challenges in health equity in the United States, while others have committees dedicated to legislative advocacy. By partnering with organizational legislative experts, members can have a greater impact at both the local and federal level.
• Advocate for and participate in advocacy training. We can create a pipeline of physicians prepared to promote health equity by increasing training in advocacy starting in medical school. 15

We do not yet know what judgment history will make of twenty-first century medical professionals. Like German physicians at the turn of the twentieth century, physicians in the United States today are held in high esteem. In addition to being honored for scientific discoveries and medical advances, will we be remembered as those who utilized the power of our profession to act on the moral principle of beneficence for all persons, or rather as complicit bystanders who neglected to intervene upon well-described disparities? Do we believe that healthcare is an inalienable human right, or will we remain complacent in the face of the current healthcare system? These are questions worth asking every single day.

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.