This Discussion Presents The Opportunity For You To Address

This discussion presents the opportunity for you to address the inequality of access to healthcare in the United States using moral and ethical reasoning

This discussion presents the opportunity for you to address the inequality of access to healthcare in the United States using moral and ethical reasoning. There is overwhelming evidence that social inequalities affect health outcomes. Many argue that lack of health care access related to poverty is a human rights concern in the United States and that it should be subject to public and social justice inquiry. As such, the Affordable Care Act was implemented to promote health equity. Prepare and post a response to the following prompt: From the viewpoint of a social justice activist, present an argument to a Congressional committee as to the ethical and moral reasons for supporting the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

Through research, anticipate an item of debate that will be offered to you by the panel and use at least one ethical theory or perspective from the text to support your evidence of moral imperative. Your initial post should be at least 250 words in length. Support your claims with examples from the required material(s) and/or other scholarly sources, and properly cite any references in APA style.

Paper For Above instruction

The issue of healthcare inequality in the United States is a pressing moral and ethical concern that warrants immediate attention and action. As a social justice activist addressing a Congressional committee, I argue that the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is not just a policy choice but a moral imperative rooted in principles of justice, human rights, and ethical responsibility.

First, the core ethical principle of justice, particularly distributive justice, underscores that access to healthcare should be equitable and fair, regardless of socioeconomic status. The disparities in health outcomes between the wealthy and impoverished are not only unjust but also morally unacceptable in a society that values human dignity. According to the theory of Rawlsian justice, social and economic inequalities must benefit the least advantaged (Rawls, 1971). The ACA aims to reduce these inequities by expanding coverage and ensuring that vulnerable populations receive necessary healthcare services.

Moreover, from a human rights perspective, access to healthcare is a fundamental human right recognized by international conventions such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948). Denying or limiting access to healthcare based on poverty deprives individuals of their basic rights and undermines the ethical duty of society to protect its members. The ACA seeks to uphold these moral standards by removing barriers to healthcare access, thus affirming the inherent dignity of every individual.

Anticipating an opposition argument, some may contend that providing universal healthcare infringes on personal responsibility or imposes undue economic burden. However, from a Kantian deontological perspective, our moral duty is to treat individuals as ends in themselves, not merely as means to economic or political ends (Kant, 1785). Ensuring health equity aligns with respecting the intrinsic worth of every person by enabling them to lead healthier lives and participate fully in society.

In conclusion, supporting the ACA aligns with moral duties derived from justice and respect for human dignity. It is ethically imperative to promote policies that reduce disparities, protect human rights, and uphold our societal moral responsibilities. The pursuit of health equity is not only a policy issue but a moral obligation grounded in ethical principles that define a just and humane society.

References

• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Translated by H. J. Paton. Harper & Brothers.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
• United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
• Graham, G. N. (2017). Social determinants of health and health disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 107(S3), S48-S49.
• Braveman, P., & Gottlieb, L. (2014). The social determinants of health: It’s time to consider the causes of the causes. Public Health Reports, 129(Suppl 2), 19-31.
• Faden, R. R., Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford University Press.
• Daniels, N. (2001). Justice, health, and healthcare. The American Journal of Bioethics, 1(2), 2-16.
• Levine, R. (2018). The ethics of health care: A reader. The MIT Press.
• Shapiro, J., & Earle, J. (2017). Ethical analysis of health disparities: Issues and challenges. Bioethics, 31(8), 573-578.
• Wilkinson, R., & Marmot, M. (2003). Social determinants of health: The solid facts. World Health Organization.