Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Healthcare & Human Rights   [Jonah Goldberg]

The Public Philosopher tackles my claim that health care is not a right. I've got some stuff on my plate this morning, but I'll try to respond a bit later. An excerpt:

First off, the government does provide the right to free-speech in nearly the same manner it might provide the right to healthcare.  In the pre-governmental or natural state that Goldberg seems to refer to, anybody can silence anybody else.   It is only through government regulation (i.e. the First Amendment and its interpretations) and civilization that people can have free speech.  Similarly, people would have healthcare before the existence of government regulation, but maybe not as much as they deserve.

Second, there is actually a body of experts that determine our free speech rights.  They are the people that interpret the First Amendment.  The Courts, the Congress, and the People all contribute to our Constitutional understanding, but the courts in particular do exactly what Goldberg deems absurd-determining what is permissible and impermissible speech (i.e. you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater just because it felt right at the time).

Third, Goldberg should distinguish, as Jeremy Waldron does, between (1) Constitutional Rights, (2) Legal Rights, and (3) Human or Moral Rights.  Only then does what he says about “rights” make any sense, because people do currently have many legal rights to healthcare (i.e. Medicaid).  It seems that Goldberg is arguing that healthcare is not a human or moral right, even though it might become a further entrenched legal right.  His concern, I believe, is that the government is obligated to protect a human or moral right and he is skeptical of any sort of universal healthcare.  That’s the practical purpose of the concept of human or moral rights.

Fourth, healthcare in some capacity might in fact be a human or moral right.

If human rights are about protecting autonomy, then people are not autonomous when they are gravely ill.  If the government is to be concerned with autonomy-as all liberal ones are-it has to draw the line somewhere.  It cannot guarantee full autonomy, for nobody has that-it’s impossible to be a completely free being, one who can will whatever he wishes and have it without any effort and in no time.  But people’s existence as moral entities depends upon their ability to make free choices, as does their status as happy, functioning, maybe even flourishing individuals.  So, people need a lot of autonomy even if full autonomy is impossible.

07/28 10:16 AMShare