Dworkin's conception of egalitarianism opposes the provision of universal healthcare.

Question

Answer

Pro: Dworkin argues that people should be treated as equals, but that this is best achieved by providing people with equal resources and providing them with information relevant to their healthcare. People could then purchase insurance in accordance with their needs, without the government needing to step in.

Answer

Pro: Dworkin rejects the principle that society must never “let someone die” or go without care if there is money in the treasury to intervene. He deems this standard “useless,” “preposterous,” and one that “no sane society” would adopt.

Answer

Con: Dworkin's argument is premised on individuals having equal wealth, opportunity, and information. Since this is not feasible, his conception of egalitarianism is not practical.

Demo Classroom Debate: Medical Ethics

Dworkin's conception of egalitarianism opposes the provision of universal healthcare.

Pros

Cons

Dworkin rejects the principle that society must never “let someone die” or go without care if there is money in the treasury to intervene. He deems this standard “useless,” “preposterous,” and one that “no sane society” would adopt.

Dworkin's argument is premised on individuals having equal wealth, opportunity, and information. Since this is not feasible, his conception of egalitarianism is not practical.

Selected claim, supporting its parent

Dworkin's conception of egalitarianism opposes the provision of universal healthcare.

Pro claim 1

Dworkin rejects the principle that society must never “let someone die” or go without care if there is money in the treasury to intervene. He deems this standard “useless,” “preposterous,” and one that “no sane society” would adopt.

Pro claim 2

Con claim 1, children below

Dworkin's argument is premised on individuals having equal wealth, opportunity, and information. Since this is not feasible, his conception of egalitarianism is not practical.