Buchanan’s attempt to justify the right to a minimum healthcare through libertarian approach is interesting in the sense that it goes the norm. While proponents for right to healthcare usually argue through the utilitarian grounds, libertarian approach is often employed by the opponents to argue against such right.

It is easy to see why Buchanan would attempt to do so as it provides a framework for libertarians who are opposed to it to look at it in an alternative way and potentially change their views. While his arguments make quite a convincing case, there are some issues with it that need to be addressed.

Buchanan takes a two-pronged approach to state his case. He uses arguments of special rights to healthcare, harm-prevention, and prudential arguments to justify a public health measure such as universal right to healthcare. He uses arguments to show how duty of beneficence would justify coercive policies that are needed to fund such a public health measure.

I will now try to critique his two-pronged approach and state my concerns for it.

• Arguments from Special Rights: The government owes certain groups of people special privileges for rectifying past or present institutional injustices, compensation to those who have suffered unjust harm by the act of private individuals or corporations, and for sacrificing their lives for the good of society. This argument on its own doesn’t help the case for universal right to healthcare as it pertains to special groups of people.

• Argument from the Prevention of Harm: The Harm Prevention Principle that is already used to justify traditional health services such as immunizations, sanitation, etc. can be elaborated to include the universal right to healthcare as it would also aim at improving the health of the population. Buchanan also brings in the equal protection clause from the constitution to further bolster his point. He argues that it would be unconstitutional to not have universal right to healthcare as it would mean that certain sections of the society would be unjustly put to harm.

This argument is probably his strongest argument as it makes a clear case and works in the contest. One issue with bringing in the equal protection clause is that it was originally aimed to prevent the government from unjustly infringing upon the right of selected individuals through making laws. It is analogous to the principle of non-maleficence in the sense that it prevents the government from doing something rather than telling it to do something. Using it to argue for universal right to healthcare therefore isn’t prudent use of the equal protection clause.

• Prudential Arguments: It emphasizes the benefits from an universal right to healthcare as it would improve the productivity of labor and fitness of the society. The argument is not enough to justify that individuals have moral right to healthcare.

Buchanan explains that the above-mentioned arguments taken together provide a convincing case for universal right to healthcare. I don’t necessarily see how it justifies universal right to healthcare because it fails to explain why individuals have the moral right to healthcare. It does however provide a very convincing case for why governments ought to provide universal healthcare to its citizens.

• Argument for Enforced Beneficence: Every person has a duty of beneficence to others. This duty expands to providing for others healthcare. But, if this duty is not enforced then it would be impossible for the whole system to work as people are short-sighted and often fail to see the long-term benefits. Enforcement would take place in the form of individual taxes and penalties.

This argument wouldn’t work through libertarian approach as it twists the duty of beneficence to some extent. Duty of beneficence is considered an imperfect duty as it is a matter of choice of the individuals to help others. It is also very important to note that it should be a choice of individuals who to help. This freedom of choice is very important in libertarianism. Any enforcement would be against the libertarian value of personal liberty. While you may argue that it the right thing to do, doing so through libertarian approach is troublesome. Let me know what you guys think.