Scenario Assignment Instructions
In the scenario assignments, you are asked to reflect on responses to the presented scenario. This should not just be writing down your first reaction or what you already know. Reflection involves critical thinking, which means rethinking your existing knowledge and previously held opinions in light of what we have learned about theories of ethics, logic, and reasoning. You will need to question your existing knowledge and beliefs. To complete each scenario assignment:
Complete the entire scenario.
Compose your reflection in a Word document and be sure to address, at a minimum, the following questions:
Why do you feel the way you do about the issue presented?
Of the four responses offered in the scenario, which do you feel is the most ethical and why?
Support your conclusions with evidence and specific examples from the textbook, as well as other sources as needed.
Your reflection must be 1-2 pages in length and follow APA formatting and citation guidelines as appropriate.
Need PLAG report.
Debating the Right to Healthcare
Hello everyone, thank you for coming to our session today. Although some people may believe that basic health care is a natural human right, it is not an enforceable right until it has been created as one and written into law. To make it enforceable requires more than a simple declaration. A rational theory of justice must underpin the claim to such a right. If this theory exists, and if we can pass the legislation, then we can establish an enforceable right. Considerable changes have brought us closer to these established rights, such as The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act in 1986 and the Affordable Care Act in 2010.
Dr. Miller: Thank you. There is a consensus in our society that we are ethically society that we are ethically required to provide a minimum of basic health care to all people. Even though the specifics of these rights are often points of contention, we could all see that this is true even prior to the Affordable Care Act. For example, for many years, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 have required us to treat people in the emergency room, regardless of their ability to pay. In other words we recognize that it is unethical to leave people to die or fail to provide emergency care when they need it. We also know that providing little or no preventative care to a large portion of the population is more costly in the long run than making such care available. So we have good financial reasons to provide that care to people, even if we didn’t have an ethical obligation to do so.
Instituting a right to health care could lower the cost of health care in the United States.
Agree? Or Don’t agree?
Dr. Garcia: It may be more costly in the long run, but it’s important to determine to whom it is costly. The costs shift drastically if you are proposing a single-payer system, and that burden rests directly on the taxpayer if the government is footing the bill. Furthermore, we may want to look more closely at our definition of “health care.” For instance, we have drastically dropped morbidity rates through better sanitation practices and widespread inoculations. If people live longer and are less likely to become sick, as is certainly the case, aren’t we already providing a basic minimum of health care, particularly in combination with the aforementioned act that requires hospitals to take in all patients in need?
It looks like we have a follow-up question on that statement from the audience. Would universal health care really improve Americans’ health?
Dr: Garcia: Universal health care could actually lower the quality and availability of disease screening and treatment. In countries with universal health care, some treatment outcomes are worse than in the United States. The 5-year survival rate for all cancers in America is 64.6%, compared to 51.6% in Europe.
Dr. Miller: The taxpayer is already footing the bill. When patients use emergency rooms in place of doctor visits, they are more likely to have serious and expensive problems that could have been prevented or cured at a lower cost if the patients had seen doctors sooner. Those using emergency room services will also pay exorbitant prices for their care, many times more than they would expect to pay for an office visit. And if they can’t pay, then the hospital eats the bill, and passes it on to other patients in the form of increased costs for medicine and services.
Dr: Garcia: But those are still costs that are passed on to patients, not the general population, or specifically, taxpayers. In any case, does our concept of social justice extend, rationally, to the point that we feel we must provide such health care? What if a patient is using crack? And at what point do we stop trying to provide the same care to everyone if our health costs have become a drag on other industries?
People should pay for their own health care, not have it given to them by the government.
Agree? Or Don’t agree?
Dr. Miller, what do you say to people who argue that we can’t afford to provide health care to every American?
Dr. Miller: Many European countries with universal health care, such as Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, have a lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita than the United States, yet they are able to provide health care for all their citizens. The United States spent $8,508 per person on health care in 2011. At that level of spending, we should be able to provide health care to everyone!
Thank you.
A. I agree with Dr. Miller. We need to provide a clear minimum of health care to everyone, and the Affordable Care Act is a step in the right direction, even if it doesn’t provide the ultimate solution. Setting the parameters for that minimum is complex and will require a lot of work, but providing care to everyone is ethically sound.
B. I agree with Dr. Garcia. We already have a minimum standard that ranks among the best in the world if we consider aspects of are such as sanitation and immunizations, which both clearly save lives. In addition, we don’t turn people away from a hospital when they need help. At some point, we have to end the obligation to float the entire society on the taxpayer’s dime. If we don’t, we risk cutting into funds that we could better spend elsewhere.
C. Everyone deserves not only basic minimum of health care, but also the same health care, When wealth decides health care, as is largely the care now, that amounts to classism. The sanctity of life does not change based on a patient’s tax bracket. But he way the system works now, quality of life does change. We are moving in the right direction by starting to address these vast inequities. We still have left health care in the hands of corporations whose business is making money, not making people healthy.
D. Let’s take step back. We know that we need a strong social justice theory that supports basic health care for all. We can use precedence to help establish that theory. We also need to consider the sanctity of life, and lives that are cut short as a result of poor health care, If we are vehemently opposed to murder, we ought to be vehemently opposed to a lack of basic health care when we have capability to provide it. It isn’t the costs that are the problem, the problem rests in whose hands the money goes through and what motivates them to spend it. When there’s a profit to be made, the motive is not altruism. So let’s establish a position and then work to create parameters for the definition of ‘basic health care’.
Consider these responses and choose the one you believe to be the most ethical.