Over the past hundred years, the field of healthcare has undergone immense scrutiny as once black and white lenses have been introduced to various shades of grey.

Within the last decade specifically, the idea of access to healthcare has gained more and more importance, playing a critical role within the last election. Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s vice presidential running mate, said “if health care is a right, then those who provide it become servants of those who need it and would be deprived of “being traders like everyone else in a free society.”” He reasoned that a universal healthcare plan, not dissimilar to Obamacare would bind doctors and other healthcare providers to the will of the bureaucracy. Conversely, President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are advocated of universal, leading to “Obamacare”, a health care plan that is affordable and available to everyone. If one chooses not to enroll in any healthcare plan, they must pay a small fee.

Universal healthcare has come under attack for a variety of reasons, primarily economic. However, economic criticisms of any single model of universal health care, such as Obamacare, do not address whether the idea of allowing every citizen healthcare is ethical. If one considers life to be a right and the duty of the government to facilitate that right within reasonable limits, then it logically follows that universal healthcare is not only desirable, but an obligation of the government.

Yet others would say that health care is a privilege. But the very foundation of life is health, and if millions have not the means to afford it or access it as others do, is the life of such a person unable to obtain health care any less worthy than someone who can afford and access the best medical science has to offer?- It seems clear from Zaremski’s tone that he believes the answer to be a resounding “No”.

Many believe that the Obamacare makes a respectable effort to ensure that buying healthcare is not mandatory for everyone (another ethical issue), by allowing people to forgo any healthcare plan at the cost of a small fee. However, where does the ethicality lie in this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-j-zaremski/health-care-reform_b_1892221.html

Within the last generation, the idea of informed consent has swiftly grown in the eyes of the public. While many scenarios focus on the repercussions patients face due to insufficient information, there have also been negative ramifications that have implicated doctors and other health care providers. These professionals face questions like how much information must they provide? How much is too much or too little information? Do information sheets and relevant websites count as the doctor informing the patient, or must certain ideas be specifically vocalized? Within this post, what is not necessary and what is necessary for a doctor to discuss will be analyzed.

The courts of Australia and Great Britain have h eld that when disclosing information, they hold “therapeutic privilege. ” This therapeutic privilege justifies “withholding information that may harm a patient” (Informed Consent: a Lesson from Australia). While at first glance this seems to be protecting a doctor from having to disclose information about heart surgery when the patient is facing a cold, this actually branches out to include a doctor not needing to discuss heart surgery for someone who would be harmed by it, even if they had a debilitating heart condition. In that particular situation, however, a doctor would probably mention the idea of heart surgery, but then clearly explain the risks associated with each particular scenario and offering their own advice as a trained health professional.

On the other hand, when communicating information to the patient about a treatment, doctors should avoid words like “small risk, slight risk, and rare”, as these terms are extremely subjective. Rather, the risks should be discussed in terms of percentages and other numerical ranges that can clearly communicate the actual statistics of the procedure or medication. In addition, a risk does not necessarily have to be life threatening to be disclosed. In “Informed Consent: a Lesson from Australia”, the example of the risk of “faeces leaking into the vagina, which is unpleasant but not life threatening” is one that should be communicated from the healthcare provider, to the patient. The article then goes on to explain that these sorts of potential risks must be clearly communicated by vocalization. It is not enough to simply “providing pamphlets about a proposed procedure”. Holland follows a similar line, explaining that the doctor must “tell” the patient the facts and risks in the form of a clear story (Holland 334).

Overall, there should be a legalized consensus as to what required of a doctor. If there was a chart while demonstrated as to when what information is necessary to be available to the patient, the healthcare provider would simply need to inform the patient based off of the circumstances that have been precedent. Until this clarification has been made, it is vital for the doctor to impart all relevant information, as it is better to over-inform rather than under-inform.

Source:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1121943/

In Holland’s­­ Arguing About Bioethics, within chapter 8 The Case Against Perfection, Sandel discusses the double-edged sword associated with cloning: where, or rather if, to draw a line between medical restoration and genetic enhancement in other situations. Specifically, he focuses on enhancement of muscles, memory, height, and selecting the sex of a child.

To begin with, Sandel reviews genetic therapy involving the restoration and strengthening of muscles. While the idea may have initially stemmed from the need to prevent natural and disease caused muscle deterioration, it is easy to see the potential misuse of the gene therapy in professional sports, giving some athletes and unfair advantage over others without the enhancement by playing God. Huard, an M.S./Ph.D, reasons that while muscle enhancement could be seen as an unfair advantage in a competitive field, muscle and bone enhancement through gene therapy “the potential clinical applications of this technology” lends itself to a multitude usages in the medical field (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgm.344/full#sec1-5).  There are, however, some drawbacks to such an enhancement, leading to a deceased functioning of some hormone glands associated with muscle growth in offspring, seen in mice.

Similar to muscles, memory also focuses on the idea of an unfair advantage sought, whether it be before an exam in school or any other academic situation. Sandel again brings up the idea of an unfair advantage, but instead of focusing on how to level the playing field and enhancing everyone, he asks the reader whether the dehumanizing of mankind should be aspired to. Englbart, however, argues that the “augmenting of human intelligence” is not dehumanizing, but rather a leap along the path of evolution, not dissimilar to humans discovering fire or creating weapons to hunt (http://dougengelbart.org/library/engelbart-archives.html). Through the several articles incorporated, as of yet, there are no known drawbacks or side effects of the memory enhancement therapy, other than playing God.

The argument for height, unlike muscles and memory, has been ongoing for several decades, as the Human Growth Hormone (HGH) has been in use for over half a century. While initially used to aid the growth of children deficient in the hormone, some parents average or even taller children, have requested this hormone pharmaceutically for the extra few inches. Sandel questions why we are building a society in which parents feel “compelled to spend a fortune to make perfectly healthy kids a few inches taller” (Holland 96).  Dr. Gill cites endocrine, ethical, economic, and equity reasoning as to why GH should not be used, explaining that the hormone can lead to diabetes (less than a 2% chance), involves “playing God”, is extremely expensive, and that there are more notable causes to focus on rather than height (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2065932/). Overall, if one can privately afford GH treatments, there are no significant repercussions and the needs for cloning to obtain tall offspring is not needed.

Finally, Sandel examines the ethicality of determining a child’s sex through the use of cloning. The arguments surrounding this claim fall parallel to the claims that encompass the abortion debate, should we have the ability to play God and decide who gets to live and who gets aborted?

Throughout Sandel’s various arguments in regards transhumanism, the only point that lacks an infallible counterargument, thus far, is the concept of “playing God” by reworking certain aspects of the human genome on a large scale.

There are several premises associated with playing God.  First, God exists. Second, God is all-powerful and all knowing. Third, humans should not attempt to play God. However, a certain loophole exists within the second premise. If God is indeed all knowing, wouldn’t He know of mankind’s attempt to clone, and then, wouldn’t He prevent this from occurring if it was bad?

Of course there are counter-counterarguments, such as cloning being a test from God, etc. And then another can of worms is opened.