Response to ‘No right to health care’

Luke Ledger

In the submission, âÄúNo right to health care,âÄù the author argued that doctors would be âÄúoppressedâÄù because they would be âÄúlegally obligated to provide health care to everyoneâÄù and that it would make them âÄúinvoluntary servants.âÄù I find this argument to be completely ridiculous for a couple of reasons. First, nobody becomes a doctor involuntarily. There may be family or other influences an individual may face that may pressure one into becoming a doctor, but as far as health care reform goes, thereâÄôs nothing in it that would force one to choose that profession. Second, people who become doctors choose that profession to help people. To make doctors âÄúlegally obligatedâÄù to do what they wanted to do in the first place doesnâÄôt make a difference. In fact, it only extends their ability to help people. The comparison to a right to happiness isnâÄôt valid in this case. To have to sacrifice your own happiness for anotherâÄôs would infringe upon your own right to happiness, rendering the whole situation a paradox and ultimately impossible. With universal health care, though, it is possible. Sacrifices would need to be made. Taxes would likely increase. But if you value your own money more than a fellow countrymanâÄôs life, I really do pity you. Luke Ledger University undergraduate student