Healthcare is not a right

We have reached a point in history where the general population has forgotten what a “right” is. I wish I was talking about only half the population, the left-leaning half, but it seems that even most on the conservative side have also forgotten. Most those on the political right agree that healthcare is not a right, but are not able to formulate a logical argument to support their belief. Therefore, it is time for the subject to be taught and for a mass understanding of inalienable rights to be preached to the citizens of the United States of America.

A “right” is an entitlement to, or an inherent possession of, something. This something can be physical or conceptual. The right to life is conceptual. The right to my body is physical. By saying I have a right to something, means I have am entitled to that object. Only the agreed upon persons have a right to this object. For example, the right to life. This is actually shortened and should properly be stated as the right to my (depending on perspective) life. I, Brent, have to right to my life. James has the right to his life. People have their right to their lives. This possession is also exclusive. I have the right to my life, and no one else does. James has the right to his life, and he does not share that right with anyone. Excluding this one example, it is a general rule that if the object is conceptual, the right is shared; whereas if the subject is physical the right is exclusive. I have to right to my property (physical) and no one else has the right to my property. I have to right to my body (physical) and I share that with no one else. I have the right to my labor (physical) and no one else does. I have the right to pursue happiness (conceptual), but so does everyone else. I have the right to freely say (conceptual) what I want and I do share that with others.

Another thing to keep in mind is that rights are not permanent and they can be given away. I may have in my will that if I’m in a coma that my wife should decide what to do with me. I have transferred my right to my body and my life to someone else. I am the only one with the rights to my labor, but if I willingly sign a contract to trade my labor for a salary, then I have transferred my right to the company I work for. It is worth mentioning that rights can only be given away voluntarily. If someone holds a gun to my head and I give them my wallet (property) I am not actually transfering my right to my property to the robber because I do not do so willingly. A court of law will recognize my continual right to the wallet and force the robber to return it to me. It gets trickier when we talk about punishment but the voluntary transfer is there. If James steals a car and is caught, obviously he is forced to give the car back as no rights were transferred, but James is also sentenced to time in prison. By being locked away where James cannot get away, has his right to life or the pursuit of happiness been willingly transferred? It sure seems like it was by force even though the authorities act as if they now own those rights. So, is this fair? Do the jailers have authority to take and justifiably hold those rights that were James’? The answer is Yes. When a person lives in, or visits, a province that is governed by laws the person, by virtue of simply being within the province, submits to those laws. Those same laws are a contract. Put another way, being within a province is agreeing to a contract where if you are to break the laws of that land you forfeit your rights to that governing body. If you do not agree with their laws or the contract you agree to by being in that province, then do not enter. It is your choice whether or not you are subject to the implied contract, but you make the choice by either visiting that area or staying out of it.

It is a logical fallacy for a concept to contradict itself. If A does not equal B, then it cannot exist at the same time where A does equal B. This is common sense and not worthy of deeper exploration. Nevertheless, it is important to remember as we continue to discuss rights and what an individual or group can have rights to. Let’s start with common ground between all sides. The right to our own life. I haven’t met a person who does not believe in this fundamental life. Unfortunately, such people do exist as shown by the continued existence of slavery. Each person owns their own life. You cannot buy a person, at least without their consent. You cannot force a person to live for someone else. You cannot morally take someone’s life, unless the threat to take yours exists within a reasonable amount or a life has already been taken. For the former, I mean that I cannot take someone’s life because they pinched me, so I feared for my life. That is not reasonable. But I can take someone’s life if they hold a knife to my back, as there is a reasonable expectation of serious hard or death. For the latter, I mean that if a cruel person has taken a life (murder) then the argument can be made that they have forfeited their own right to life since they forcefully took that right from someone else. Now that I have covered the exceptions, I know the reader will know what I mean when I say we have the right to our own lives, and I assume they will agree.

If an assumed right infringes on an already established right, then the newer right must be scratched out or amended. Most would say I have the right to pursue happiness. If buying a car would make me happy, I have the right to pursue the purchase of a car (notice I did not say a right to a car, as that would conflict with the rights to property, but instead I made clear the right is to PURSUE the purchase of a car). This pursuit does not infringe on any right that we have agreed upon, namely the right to our own lives. So this right may stand with being amended. Let’s us look at an extreme example. Let us say that James is psychotic and claims that he derives happiness from taking the lives of others. Is he free to pursue murder? Everyone would say “no”, but the reason as to “why” is just as important. James is not free to pursue murder as that would infringe on the predetermined rights that we agreed upon. Killing someone takes their right to their life. Since this right to pursue happiness may infringe on the rights of others, it must be amended (which the population subconsciously does anyway) to say that we have the right to pursue our happiness as long as it does not infringe on the someone’s right to life. As was stated earlier, if two rights conflict, the newer must be amended. We cannot have two conflicting right existing at the same time. We cannot have A equal B and A not equal B at the same time.

I would like to point out again the forfeiture of rights. If James infringes on the rights of someone, then it is justifiable for a governing entity (the people) to ignore/take James’ rights and punish him. If a person violates the established rights of another, then punishment is justifiable. Conversely, the only time punishment (the taking of rights) is justifiable is if the punishee has violated the rights of another. If an entity is to punish a man named Mike, it must be because Mike first violated someone else’s rights.

Let us finally look at healthcare, and you may begin to see the picture before I paint it. What is healthcare, or what is a definition that has the best chance of being agreed upon while also reflecting what the people mean for it to say. In a general sense, healthcare is going to a doctor’s office, being diagnosed, and getting treatment for the ailment. Healthcare requires, at a minimum, 3 things: a patient, a doctor, and a remedy. When compared to other rights, you can see how having 3 objects makes this more complicated than others. The right to your own life require 1 object: the person. This is why it is the most basic right. Meanwhile, the right to pursue happiness requires 2 objects: the person desiring happiness and the object that (supposedly) grants happiness. Now, depending on what the person wants, the right to happiness could require 3 objects, with the added object being the maker of the object. If I want a car, then the 3 objects would be myself, a lexus, and a lexus manufacturer. The same goes for healthcare. Maybe a Doctor can profive a treatment for my ailment and the 3 objects would be myself, the doctor, and the treatment. Even if I can self diagnose myself, there are still at least 3 objects needed: myself, the pill, and the pill maker. In the rare case that what cures my ailment is a naturally occuring resource I can get myself, then only 2 objects are required, but I would not define this as healthcare, but more towards the right to pursue happiness and the right to your own property. With healthcare, the thing to note is that along with requiring at least 3 objects, one of those objects is another person (doctor, pill maker, pharmacist, chiropractor, surgeon).

If you say you have the right to healthcare, you are saying you have the right to those 3 objects needed for healthcare. For simplicity sake, and to remove the objection from right to property, let’s use the example of heart surgery. The 3 ingredients here are clearly: you, the doctor, and the treatment of repairing the heart or it’s surrounding blood vessels. Now, do you have the right to yourself? Of course. Do you have to right to the treatment? Yes again, as the treatment does not infringe on any other right. But, do you have the right to the doctor? Do you have a right to part of the doctor’s life? To his time? No, you do not!

Healthcare requires the assistance of a Doctor and no one has a right to that Doctor’s life except themself. If Billy requires life-saving heart surgery does the Doctor have to perform the procedure? No. The Doctor owns his life and may make whatever choice he wants to with it. For those wondering, the hippocratic oath is simply a promise to one’s self and not a legally binding contract. So that does not apply here. Let me also point out that just because the Doctor has a right to his life, does not mean he is free from consequences. If the Doctor refused to do the surgery for Billy, he has the right. But the hospital also has the right to fire the Doctor and would probably do so. The Doctor will also have to live with the fact that he did not save a life, which may or may not haunt him for a period of time. Those are valid consequences. What is not a valid consequence is for the Doctor to be arrested for not performing the surgery. If healthcare is somehow deemed a right and a Doctor refuses to perform surgery, then the Doctor will be arrested and jailed. A playout of this scenario would probably be as follows, where Billy arrives at the hospital and is diagnosed with some type of heart issue. A heart surgeon is called to perform the heart surgery. The surgeon tells the hospital he will not perform the surgery; the reason matters not, maybe his wife is sick or maybe his favorite football team is playing and he doesn’t want to miss it. The hospital tells the surgeon that Billy has a right to healthcare and the surgeon must provide it. The surgeon still refuses. The hospital then calls the police to arrest the surgeon on charges of infringing on Billy’s right to healthcare. The surgeon is arrested and later found guilty of not performing the surgery and therefore sentenced to a few years in prison. This scenario resembles any other criminal act and will not be hard to follow.

This is an injustice and should not be allowed. By placing the surgeon in jail, the governing entity is taking the surgeon’s right to life. As stated earlier the only time punishment (the taking of rights) is justifiable is if the punishee has violated the rights of another. The result of making healthcare a right is taking the rights of surgeons if they refuse to provide treatment. Put another way, the result of making healthcare a right is that a doctor can have their right to life taken from them should they choose to not share ownership of their own right to life (time, existence) with a patient. Therefore, the right to healthcare infringes on the right to life of others and consequently must be amended or thrown out.

I do not see a way in which the right to healthcare can be amended such that it will not interfere with the right to life of another, so it must be thrown out.Hopefully, the reader now has the evidence to know why healthcare cannot be a right. The right to one’s own life is the most basic universal right. We also know that 2 rights cannot coexist if they interfere with each other. The right to healthcare requires 3 ingredients, the patient, the treatment, and the doctor. Since only the doctor has the right to the doctor’s life, and the patient has no join ownership, the right to healthcare infringes on the doctor’s right to his own life and therefore cannot exist as a right.