In an upcoming policy class I teach at OHSU we will be having a discussion regarding healthcare as a human “right”. Most modern societies guarantee healthcare access for all citizens. The US clearly does not. Any insights you can relate on healthcare as a human right are appreciated. Thank you.
Following up on Ed B's comment, negative rights are those that have a delivery cost of zero or nearly that. Positive rights need someone to pay for them. Healthcare access definitely falls into this latter category. And while some countries have made this a civil right, by writing it into their social contract, I don't know of any countries that treat it as a true human right, in the sense of being willing to pay for the healthcare of people who live in other countries, except on an emergency and limited basis. Good luck with the course, Tom.
“Natural rights” have been presented as “negative rights”, rights which a moral government should not abrogate. “Human rights” have been presented as “positive rights” where a government or forcing body is required to provide them.
That distinction is a useful first step. But it still leaves plenty of questions. Is the death penalty inherently immoral? Under what circumstances can governments confiscate property? Taxes? Eminent domain?
For the death penalty, due process is what separates those whose lives a moral government is bound to protect from law bearkers. Taxes, to me, are a clear case of foregoing natural rights. I’m no fan of eminent domain.
Another great post, Bill. The last 4 paragraphs remind me of what Jefferson wrote in his letter to Roger C. Weightman: "May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."
Couldn’t we argue that “ the right to work, the right to marry, the right to an education, the right to rest and holidays, the right to culture and art, and the right to social security” all fall into either “certain unalienable Rights” that are not listed, or simply under the pursuit of happiness? After all, it’s not really possible to achieve that Aristotelian idea of happiness without education; culture, work, food, healthcare, etc.
That is sort of how things played out. Jefferson was deliberately vague, but his successors became more specific. The trouble is, who is going to enforce those rights? What does the right to an education mean in a very poor country that can't afford it? Or the right to marry, in a country, like contemporary China, that has an imbalance between the sexes? Rights are easy to promise, but hard to fulfill. And if they are not fulfilled, then all the rights promised are in danger of being seen as hollow and bogus. Better, I think, to promise less and fulfill more.
In an upcoming policy class I teach at OHSU we will be having a discussion regarding healthcare as a human “right”. Most modern societies guarantee healthcare access for all citizens. The US clearly does not. Any insights you can relate on healthcare as a human right are appreciated. Thank you.
Following up on Ed B's comment, negative rights are those that have a delivery cost of zero or nearly that. Positive rights need someone to pay for them. Healthcare access definitely falls into this latter category. And while some countries have made this a civil right, by writing it into their social contract, I don't know of any countries that treat it as a true human right, in the sense of being willing to pay for the healthcare of people who live in other countries, except on an emergency and limited basis. Good luck with the course, Tom.
“Natural rights” have been presented as “negative rights”, rights which a moral government should not abrogate. “Human rights” have been presented as “positive rights” where a government or forcing body is required to provide them.
That distinction is a useful first step. But it still leaves plenty of questions. Is the death penalty inherently immoral? Under what circumstances can governments confiscate property? Taxes? Eminent domain?
For the death penalty, due process is what separates those whose lives a moral government is bound to protect from law bearkers. Taxes, to me, are a clear case of foregoing natural rights. I’m no fan of eminent domain.
Incidentally, great post.
Another great post, Bill. The last 4 paragraphs remind me of what Jefferson wrote in his letter to Roger C. Weightman: "May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."
TJ put the matter well, as he often did.
Couldn’t we argue that “ the right to work, the right to marry, the right to an education, the right to rest and holidays, the right to culture and art, and the right to social security” all fall into either “certain unalienable Rights” that are not listed, or simply under the pursuit of happiness? After all, it’s not really possible to achieve that Aristotelian idea of happiness without education; culture, work, food, healthcare, etc.
That is sort of how things played out. Jefferson was deliberately vague, but his successors became more specific. The trouble is, who is going to enforce those rights? What does the right to an education mean in a very poor country that can't afford it? Or the right to marry, in a country, like contemporary China, that has an imbalance between the sexes? Rights are easy to promise, but hard to fulfill. And if they are not fulfilled, then all the rights promised are in danger of being seen as hollow and bogus. Better, I think, to promise less and fulfill more.