Another Perspective: Response to the Health Care Switch
Nathan Jones
Issue date: 10/20/09 Section: Opinion
In "The Health Care Switch: A Moral Dilemma" Corrina Cohn wants us to understand the consequences of our actions on the American healthcare system. She is concerned that changes being contemplated by Congress will hurt our research capacity. "Patient lives saved today," Cohn writes, "come at the expense of those who might be saved in the future." She asks us to imagine living in a world where health care was stuck in the 1970s to show how much we'd be giving up if the proposed reforms are signed into law.
Cohn frames her discussion in reference to a moral problem Professor Krauss presented in his Torts class where a person must choose between not acting and saving one life at the cost of five or acting and saving five lives at the cost of one. Unfortunately she doesn't provide a moral basis for her conclusion other than the fact that the costs (loss of future technological advances) seem greater to her than the gains (universal coverage) that might result from acting. Of course we know that there are many people who feel otherwise, so she's skipped the really important question: how shall we decide who is right?
As modern American law students, we are part of a privileged elite. In a few years, an overwhelming majority of us will be in the top 20% of the income earners in this country. We will not have to worry about personal safety, where our next meal is coming from or how to pay the doctor when we get sick. Cohn's article is written from the point of view of someone who will have no problem affording the technological advances the US health care system will produce in the next few decades. But what happens if the tables are turned? The best predictor of educational attainment and future income is zip-code. Americans from not-so-fortunate zip-codes reasonably prefer a system that ensures everyone receives a moderate level of basic care to a system that results in some people bankrupting themselves to get treatment while others get Cadillac care.
Cohn frames her discussion in reference to a moral problem Professor Krauss presented in his Torts class where a person must choose between not acting and saving one life at the cost of five or acting and saving five lives at the cost of one. Unfortunately she doesn't provide a moral basis for her conclusion other than the fact that the costs (loss of future technological advances) seem greater to her than the gains (universal coverage) that might result from acting. Of course we know that there are many people who feel otherwise, so she's skipped the really important question: how shall we decide who is right?
As modern American law students, we are part of a privileged elite. In a few years, an overwhelming majority of us will be in the top 20% of the income earners in this country. We will not have to worry about personal safety, where our next meal is coming from or how to pay the doctor when we get sick. Cohn's article is written from the point of view of someone who will have no problem affording the technological advances the US health care system will produce in the next few decades. But what happens if the tables are turned? The best predictor of educational attainment and future income is zip-code. Americans from not-so-fortunate zip-codes reasonably prefer a system that ensures everyone receives a moderate level of basic care to a system that results in some people bankrupting themselves to get treatment while others get Cadillac care.
Be the first to comment on this story