The One Essay Question 40 Points Is Based On Information Fro
The One Essay Question 40 Points Is Based On Information From Chap
The one essay question (40 points) is based on information from Chapter 12 and uses prompts from Exercise 12.9. You will be required to compose a short essay (200–400 words) in which you follow the six steps on page 295 of the textbook. There are three possible options; which one you get will be randomly decided by the computer program. The topics are: whether healthcare should be free for all citizens; whether torture is ever acceptable; and whether animals should ever be used for scientific research. It would be advisable to have an essay available for each option that contains at least two supporting points, one counterpoint, one reply to that counterpoint, and proper citations/references.
Work is to be concise. Remember to always use proper citation when quoting other sources. This means that any borrowed material (even a short summary or phrase) needs a citation of the source (author/date/page number) immediately following the end of the sentence in which the summarized, paraphrased, or quoted material occurs. Changing a few words in a passage does not constitute putting it into your own words, and proper citation is still required. Borrowed material should not dominate a student’s work; it should only be used sparingly to support the student’s thoughts, ideas, and examples. Heavy usage of borrowed material (even if properly cited) can jeopardize the points for that question.
Uncited material can jeopardize a passing grade on the exam. As a part of our commitment to academic integrity, your work may be submitted to Turnitin.com, an online plagiarism-checking service. So please be mindful of proper citation. Be very clear on the essay question direction mentioned above.
Paper For Above instruction
The ethical and moral dimensions of controversial issues such as healthcare provision, torture, and animal research have long been subjects of intense debate. Each of these topics presents unique challenges that require careful analysis, supporting evidence, and acknowledgment of opposing viewpoints. This essay will explore whether healthcare should be free for all citizens, whether torture can ever be justified, and whether animals should be used in scientific research. For clarity and coherence, I will focus on the first topic: whether healthcare should be universally free, illustrating the six steps as outlined in the course material.
Introduction and Thesis Statement
Advocates for free universal healthcare argue that access to essential medical services is a human right and that societal wellbeing depends on it (WHO, 2010). Conversely, opponents contend that such policies are economically unsustainable and may lead to decreased quality of care (Smith, 2015). This essay will evaluate supporting points for and against universal healthcare, include a counterpoint, and provide a reasoned reply grounded in ethical and economic considerations.
Supporting Point 1: Human Rights Perspective
One primary argument in favor of free healthcare is based on the human rights framework. According to the World Health Organization (2010), health is a fundamental human right that should be accessible to all, regardless of income. Countries with universal healthcare systems, such as Sweden and Canada, demonstrate that accessible healthcare can promote equity and social justice (OECD, 2018). Providing free healthcare ensures that no individual is left unable to access medical services due to financial barriers, thus promoting societal fairness.
Supporting Point 2: Economic and Social Benefits
Another supporting point involves economic benefits. Proponents argue that early intervention and preventive care, which are more accessible under universal healthcare, reduce long-term costs and improve productivity (Harper, 2019). For example, comprehensive healthcare reduces emergency room visits and untreated illnesses, leading to healthier workforces and lower public health expenditures over time (OECD, 2018).
Counterpoint: Economic Strain and Resource Allocation
A significant counterpoint is the concern over economic sustainability. Critics argue that universal healthcare systems require substantial government spending, which may strain national budgets, increase taxes, and overburden healthcare systems with demand (Gray, 2016). Critics suggest that this could lead to rationing of services and decreased quality of care.
Reply to Counterpoint
While economic concerns are valid, empirical evidence from countries with successful universal healthcare programs demonstrates that such systems can be economically sustainable when efficiently managed (OECD, 2018). Additionally, the societal benefits of improved public health and reduced inequalities often outweigh the costs. Strategic resource allocation, investment in health infrastructure, and system efficiency can mitigate financial strains (Harper, 2019).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the argument for universal healthcare is compelling when viewed through the lenses of human rights and economic benefits. Although challenges exist regarding costs, effective policy implementation can make free healthcare both feasible and beneficial for society. The broader ethical imperative to promote health equity supports the adoption of universal healthcare systems, ensuring that medical care is a right rather than a privilege.
References
- Harper, S. (2019). The benefits of universal healthcare. Journal of Health Economics, 65, 102-112.
- Gray, A. (2016). Economic challenges of healthcare reform. Health Policy Review, 4(2), 45-60.
- OECD. (2018). Health at a Glance: Europe 2018. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
- Smith, J. (2015). The sustainability of national health systems. Public Policy Journal, 12(3), 45-59.
- World Health Organization. (2010). The Right to Health. WHO Fact Sheet.