There’s been a lot of debate recently about healthcare in the US, leading to some heated debate about whether ‘rationing’ treatments is right. You might have seen the ‘I ❤ the NHS' badges on Twitter, etc.
Beneath all the hype, there are some serious philosophical issues, and it's nice to finally see an article in the NYT tackle the issue at a philosophical level. For all you philosophy fans out there, Peter Singer is a preference utilitarian, strongly connected with the animal liberation movement, with his critique of ‘speciesism’.
[Some caveats- the Singer piece is on the long side for a newspaper article. And I certainly don’t advocate all of Singer’s views!]
I think the biggest challenge with making healthcare policy is that we have immediate and emotional experience of healthcare (“that time when I/my beloved was ill, and the hospital helped/harmed…”) which encourages a ‘no treatment too expensive’ view.
But when we pay our NI contributions, or insurance premiums, some people can’t bear the thought of ‘others’ (eg smokers, risk-takers) being ‘expensively’ cured. There’s also the complication that you’re might be most able to pay for healthcare (young and affluent) when you’re least likely to need it…
[And all this comes before any ideological arguments about whether the state or the private sector (and/or need/wealth)should do the ‘rationing’!]
I think this is why a small dose of utilitarian philosophy needs to come in. No-one likes it, but it seems the best option (utilitarian philosophy, that is)
things that might have been otherwise 