Is the rationing of healthcare ethical?

@demonhunter,

define the rationing you speak of please...

@Rockhead,

I am intentionally being vague in order that I might hear as many viewpoints as possible. What would be a definition of "rationing" that would make it okay? What about one that wouldn’t?

One thing that I can say is that in the real world, "rationing" does take place. For example, a not-so-controversial instance is: triage in emergency situations. For another example, an instance that is more-controversial is: the inadequacy of healthcare for people in developing countries. I’m sure it is not too difficult to think about many other instances. While the above examples are rather black and white, I would like to hear people’s perspective on some of the grey areas as well.

Hopefully, this opens up the debate a bit without limiting it too much.

1 Reply

@demonhunter,

healthcare is rationed right now in the USA. it is rationed financially.

and no, it is not fair...

0 Replies

here in canada we have universal healthcare, i do support rationing of healthcare, i'd prefer it was done on a personal level, one example, if you're on your way out, you should opt out of transplant surgeries that could best be used on younger or healthier folks, that being said i wouldn't be opposed to "death panels" to decide the most viable use of some healthcare

3 Replies

@djjd62,

Rationing yes. Death panels no. Would you want to put your life in the hands of politicians or business men which is what death panels would be composed of.

0 Replies

@demonhunter,

demonhunter wrote:

Why or why not?

Not, and because we are a commonwealth, and our founding document says life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and the first and last are impossible without health care... Public health is not a private problem... To act like the rich can sit on their billions while all sorts of public problems go begging is nuts... If they have squeezed all the profit out of this society then we and they should all live without it, but no one can live well or happily without proper health...The rich should be taxed to death before the poor and working class should bear an ounce more of the weight of this oppressive society... It is a commonwealth... That does not mean we must bear the cost and they own the property... They cannot defend their rights alone, and they cannot defend the land alone... If we must do what they cannot alone do, then they should pay their share...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Weren't you the one that had no problem with the current capitalist system, and the inequities caused by it in the 3rd world?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Weren't you the one that had no problem with the current capitalist system, and the inequities caused by it in the 3rd world?

EXcuse ME??? I recognize that capitalism survives on the exploitation of the environment and of people, many of whom are found in the third world... We have had it relatively good in this country because we have had many of our own resources to exploit, but primarily because we have enjoyed the suffering of third world, dark skinned people... We are running out of resources, and we are running out of people willing to be exploited and so what we have been, what our capitalists have been to the third world is being visited upon us, and if we are not totally demoralized by the injustice we have been a party to, we will revolt, and forever end the tyranny of capital in our lives... It cannot get bad enough fast enough to get people off their asses to do something, anything... It hits people one at a time, and the rest go to church and thank God that it is not them on the soup line and homeless... And they blame invariably the morals of life's victims rather than their own morals in common with the victim... We justify injustice for others to suffer, and find we have justified injustice for ourselves to suffer... And we feel we must be innocent in order to cast a stone... All we need to admit is that we were wrong, and it is time to start piling up amunition..

1 Reply

@djjd62,

So you consider universal healthcare both a form of "rationing" and preferable (to the USA's system)?

1 Reply

@demonhunter,

i don't think it's a form of rationing, but i'd have no problem if it was, i do prefer universal healthcare, here in canada it's only medical covered

dental, eyes and prescriptions we pay for ourselves (unless you have some work or private healthcare coverage), but you won't go bankrupt having your appendix out

0 Replies

@demonhunter,

demonhunter wrote:

Why or why not?

If the demand for health care exceeds its supply, then it must be rationed in some fashion. Whether that rationing is ethical or not depends on how you do it. Rationing per se, however, is neither ethical nor unethical -- it's non-ethical.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Interesting. Say more.

0 Replies

demonhunter wrote:

Is the rationing of healthcare ethical?

In my opinion, it's neither ethical nor unethical. Ethics does not apply to the rationing of healthcare.

demonhunter wrote:

Why or why not?

Because "ought" implies "can", and we simply don't have the option of not rationing healthcare in some way. The quantity of healthcare demanded outruns the quantity that we as a society are able to supply. Since we can't not ration, then, our only option is to choose the process---market or government---under which the rationing happens. To this choice, ethics does apply. But it's not the choice you were asking about.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thanks for your response Thomas. It is an idea that I consider worth examining in more detail.
If I understand what you are saying...
If it is by government that the allocation of resources is determined, then this allocation is a form of rationing. If it is by market that the allocation of resources is determined, then this allocation is a form of rationing. Rationing is not a matter of ethics; however, ethics does apply the process of making a choice in what form of rationing is to be had.
What I am unsure about is...
How is this choice considered an ethical decision without one of the options being considered more or less ethical than the other? More importantly, is market considered a form of rationing simply on the basis that supply does not meet demand?

2 Replies

@demonhunter,

demonhunter wrote:

More importantly, is market considered a form of rationing simply on the basis that supply does not meet demand?

Yes. There is more demand for most resources than there are resources to allocate. Increase the supply, and prices usually drop. This is no more an ethical question than gravity.

1 Reply

@demonhunter,

demonhunter wrote:

How is this choice considered an ethical decision without one of the options being considered more or less ethical than the other?

I'm not sure to what choice you're referring with the term "this choice". If you're referring to the choice whether to ration, there is no ethical decision to make because you have no choice. If you're referring to the choice how to ration, there is an ethical decision to make because you do have a choice. For example, if you're a utilitarian or a Rawlesian liberal, you will ethically favor a universal healthcare system with some government involvement, because it's more efficient and more equitable. Or if you're a libertarian, you may ethically prefer the free market because government-run systems require more coercion. Either way, you can evaluate the ethics of choices---because you have a choice in the first place.

demonhunter wrote:

More importantly, is market considered a form of rationing simply on the basis that supply does not meet demand?

Yes. Wherever supply does meet demand without rationing, there is no need for a market. That's why there is no market for breathable air, for example. Markets are institutions for managing scarcity, or in other words, for rationing.

2 Replies

@roger,

Of course, the two examples (gravity and supply v. demand) are not questions at all, but laws of the nature of things. However, are you saying that the allocation of resources (in whatever form it takes on) is just the the nature of things and therefore not a question of ethics?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Interesting and valid.
The idea that I need to think about is whether this particular scarcity of resources (and resulting necessarity of rationing) is by choice, though. Healthcare is expensive even for government based systems. If market is, at least, part of the reason for scarcity of resources, then would rationing become an ethical issue?

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

demonhunter wrote:
How is this choice considered an ethical decision without one of the options being considered more or less ethical than the other?

I'm not sure to what choice you're referring with the term "this choice". If you're referring to the choice whether to ration, there is no ethical decision to make because you have no choice. If you're referring to the choice how to ration, there is an ethical decision to make because you do have a choice. For example, if you're a utilitarian or a Rawlesian liberal, you will ethically favor a universal healthcare system with some government involvement, because it's more efficient and more equitable. Or if you're a libertarian, you may ethically prefer the free market because government-run systems require more coercion. Either way, you can evaluate the ethics of choices---because you have a choice in the first place.

demonhunter wrote:
More importantly, is market considered a form of rationing simply on the basis that supply does not meet demand?

Yes. Wherever supply does meet demand without rationing, there is no need for a market. That's why there is no market for breathable air, for example. Markets are institutions for managing scarcity, or in other words, for rationing.

That is why they are doing all they can to turn the air to poisonous muck... It is so we can buy it like bottled water...

0 Replies

Is the rationing of healthcare ethical?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know