Kialo requires JavaScript to work correctly.
Demo Classroom Debate: Medical Ethics
Loading Discussion
Selected claim, opposing its parent
Rawlsian egalitarianism supports universal healthcare.
Pros
Cons
Pro claim 1, children below
Norman Daniels extended Rawlsian principles to support universal health care. He argued, "Social institutions affecting health care distribution thus should be arranged, as far as possible, to allow each person to achieve a fair share of the normal range of opportunities present in that society." (Principles of Bioethics, p. 257)
Pro claim 2, children below
Rawl’s theory recognizes a positive societal obligation to reduce or eliminate barriers that prevent fair equality of opportunity and establishes that inequalities in social primary goods may only be allowed if they benefit everyone (Principle of Bioethics, p.256).
Pro claim 3
Rawlsian egalitarianism provides each person with the maximum amount of individual liberty without infringing upon the liberty of others.
Con claim 1, children below
According to the principle of fair opportunity, universal healthcare should only be provided if it can provide for people with every sort of disability (Principle of Bioethics, p. 264). Due to the limited availability of resources and the expense of medical facilities and treatments, it is extremely unlikely that this condition can be met so that egalitarianism is upheld.
Con claim 2, children below
Universal healthcare infringes upon the liberty of other people.