Good Example Of Is It Really Fair To Distribute Medical Care Equally Essay

The concept of equality comes in the picture when the debate about human worth and human rights is initiated. Equality champions often come up with mottos that claim that all human beings are equal and therefore they deserve equal treatment. On the other hand, counters of equality claim the equality is the enemy of incentive and creativity. Given the two notions, we wonder what is meant by equality. Equality is a term that indicates a quantitative relationship. It indicates connection between a group of different persons with similar qualities in at least one aspect and corresponds itself in all its features. The concept of equality shows estimate but not the same. For example to say that men are all equal as Bernard Williams puts it in the article ‘The Idea of Equality’ is a patent of falsehood since it does not mean that they are identical. Equality implies similarity and not sameness.
In the case of medical care, the concept of equality is debatable as to whether medical care should be distributed equally. Two groups emerge in this debate that either is for or against the same. The group for equality is pioneered by Bernard William while Robert Nozick, in the article, ‘Anarchy State and Utopia’ spearheads the group against equality. Though Williams is not clear on his stand, Nozick points Williams stand on medical care in the response in his article. Briefly, Nozick says that in his argument about equality William says that the only rational ground for the distribution of medical care is ill health. Nozick on his own accord is not for the equality that is proposed by Williams. The question we seek to answer in this paper is; is it really fair to distribute medical care fairly? We shall look at the two sides that are for and against the topic and make a conclusion based on the facts provided.
The common notion that most proponents of equality hold are that, 'All human beings are equal, and should therefore be treated as such'. This notion is a despairing ideal which is at best utopian and at worst can lead to the annihilation of other more significant values such as freedom and self-reliance in a society. The mere fact that we are all human beings does not in any way mean that we are equal. We are quite different in character, lifestyle and the classes that we occupy in the society. It will therefore not be fair to distribute medical care equally to people who are not equal from the very on set. Individuals should be treated fairly only in accordance to their differing abilities.
Robert Nozick argues that although governments require that one must respect certain individual rights, many of the activities that the government undertakes are without moral foundation. The notion that human beings are equal is an outdated notion that can only be found in the traditional libertarian theories. It is a great misapprehension for one to assume that impartiality must be built into any theory of justice. Medical care can be perceived to be a scarce resource that costs governments millions of monies every year. It should therefore not be distributed equally to all people but should rather be distributed by considering how needy the people are as far as medical care is concerned. However, the internal goal of distributing medical care should be considered because at the end of the day this will have to be attained. For instance, certain people who live in certain places are needed by the government than others may be due to their social classes, political influence or for some other different reasons. It is therefore evident that the medical services will be allocated to those people or places while others are out so that the internal goal of the entire activity will be attained.
Additionally, regions differ in terms of population. When allocating medical facilities, governments should not merely distribute the resources on an equality basis simply in a bid to attain equality a condition that never exists. Distributing resources on an equal basis if it happens can be a start of just. Nozick makes an assumption that if one starts with a just situation, then the final situation that final situation that we arrive at will also be just. This assumption does not hold at all. Even if governments start allocating and distributing medical care equally, it will finally not create a just condition in the society.
There should not be a variation of health care access and equality based on race, ethnicity or socioeconomic status. There has been a great disparity in medical care provision based on these categories. This categorization is unjust and discriminatory. Since all human beings are treated as equal by the constitution, such disparities in the medical field should be eliminated. Every human being should be given equal medical attention and treatment or response to medical emergencies despite their race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status.
There should be equal distribution of health care services all over the country. There are visible disparities in the country involving unfair distribution of healthcare resources such as hospitals, medical personnel or/ and medical equipments. However, these disparities are prevalent in areas where the dwellers are either discriminated by race or social class. This unfairness should be eliminated so that everyone can access better medical care to enhance their health and wellbeing.
My point concerns Williams’ discussion of idea of equality which is mostly based on political discussion. It may be considered as a statement of fact or what purport to be statements of fact that men are all equal. I am not really advocating this but am only pointing out that an argument needs to be given. At any rate Williams own argument seem to lack a standards however he is very concern on medical treatment and education which he suggests that equality must be a core consideration in every society. I suggest that Williams could combine the two idea of equality about men.
The aim is to secure a state of affairs that men area unit treated because the equal beings which they actually already area unit, however don't seem to be already treated as being. In each these uses, the thought of equality notoriously encounters an equivalent problem that on one reasonably interpretation the statements during which it figures area unit abundant too robust, and on another kind abundant too weak, and it's arduous to search out a satisfactory interpretation lies between the two.
It should go without saying that it’s really fair to distribute medical care equally. In Williams essay he distinguishes between two elements in the idea of equality. He argues that equality of respects and equality of opportunity must therefore be considered in our daily lives. The first concern goes to his reasonable thoughts against objection of having foothold for the notion of equality. He argues that it may be useful to make a rough distinction between two dissimilar types of inequality. As he listed them down they include inequality of merit and inequality of need.
The two inequalities give corresponding distinction between goods. What Williams does refer to is the idea of providing a reason. He argues that differences in treatment would have to be motivated by a reason. He makes people to realize that goods are demanded by need and also they can be earned by the merit. Therefore need for medical treatment during illness it are often likely for sensible functions that the persons who have the necessity really want the goods in question, so the question can be considered one amongst distribution in a straightforward sense the satisfaction of an existing want.
Within the case of advantage, like for instance the possession of talents to make the most of a university education, there is not an equivalent presumption that everybody who has the merit has the need for the goods in question, although it is going to be the case. Williams attacks as unreasonable after suggesting that a society in which medical care is distributed on grounds. This is a real fact that equality in some sectors such as medical treatment should be treated equally. Williams call this a necessary truths and point out correctly that proper ground of medical care is ill health. In an equal society equality should not be based on wealth, therefore the society should proper apply notions of equality and inequality where necessary.
In conclusion therefore, it is important to practice equality in medical care distribution in order to exercise fairness. Like pointed in the paper, equality and fairness will foster good health. It is necessary for the country development and achievement of many health objectives. However, this fact is debatable as it is seen that inequality exists in every aspect of human life. Despite our efforts to eliminate such inequalities, nature has its own way of ensuring unfairness. Such inequalities as race, ethnicity and socioeconomic disparities are naturally determined and cannot be eliminated easily.