There is no denying that we live in an unbalanced society, where the allocation of wealth and resources greatly varies across populations. And unfortunately, this comes into play in regards to healthcare as well. In “Access to Health Care,” Brody and Engelhard raise important points on how health care ought to be distributed versus how it is distributed. It is first and foremost important to note that a perfectly distributed society is not possible—at least in today’s society and government—and that different levels of wealth and resources will always exist. However, the debate of how those resources should translate to everyone’s necessary need of healthcare is a different story. Thus, as Brody states, “To what extent and at what cost ought a society attempt to provide equal health care for all?”

Brody presents us with three case studies. In Case A, the main issue is financial access to resources. Should Mr. A be denied surgery because he can’t pay for it, or should the physicians be upheld strictly to their duty to provide help and service to all who need it? For Case B, the main issue is physical access to resources. Mrs. B needs transportation to effectively make use of her right to healthcare, and so her access is very limited. Here, we have to evaluate if it is fair for Mrs B—and consequently her son—to be stripped of healthcare due to location and inaccessibility. Case C, in my opinion, tugs at the heart strings the most, as it entails making personal sacrifices to ensure the access to health of a loved one. Here, we must evaluate the justice in asking someone to divorce a spouse or lose access to Medicaid.

For Case A, financial resources have and always will be an inequality in healthcare. It is fair to require payment for healthcare when healthcare requires cost to perform, such as a surgery. However, Mr. A should not be denied all-together because of his current financial status. Should his condition worsen quickly and dramatically, the physicians could face a situation where they forewent treatment before and are now faced with a more severe situation, which I believe is not ethical. There should be alternative options here, such as a payment plan, contracts, and policies to help people in Mr. A’s situation receive healthcare. I do not think it is just and right for society to deny someone right to healthcare fully, as it is a necessity to life.

For Case B, the issue is physical access to healthcare. The question posed here is: Should one allow such inequalities in access to health care resources? In the case of Mrs. B, she could take action to relocate closer to health facilities if needed, should the son require persistent healthcare. Here, the ball is more in her court than society’s. If the demand is not there for a healthcare facility where she lives, then she must make the play. The cost/benefit for the community to place a healthcare facility in her home location is not feasible.

For Case C, different governments and policy makers might approach this situation with varying perspectives. However, based on the readings and class discussions on utilitarianism and libertarianism, it breaches all ethics to require one to let go of their right to marriage for their right to healthcare. Those two rights should be independent on one another. Society is not justified to interfere in that manner. Their job is to provide healthcare, which should be done independently of personal matters, particularly marriage.

In each case, different issues of justice and resource allocations arise. However, each case describes situations that occur all the time today. Our healthcare system is flawed and our justice system is varied, which provides loopholes for each scenario. However, society ought to make valid attempts to find ways to provide healthcare for all, in manners that don’t require one to compromise their other obligations and morals to do so.

Works Cited

Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. “Justice.” Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 2001. 249-67. Print

Brody and T. Engelhard, “Access to Health Care,” Bioethics: Readings and Cases