Final Paper (A Decent Minimum of Health Care) - 1 A Decent...

1
A Decent Minimum of Health Care
The Wrong Argument for a Positive Right
Regardless of the theory of justice that one subscribes to, most can intuitively
agree that it would be ideal for all citizens to have access to some sort of health care. An
egalitarian approach to the distribution of health care would provide that everyone has an
equal right to health care resources (Vaughn, 543). However, one must recognize that a
health care system in which everyone receives the same universal access would not be
economically feasible, considering the resources it would take to satisfy all of the various
and competing health needs in a society. Thus, those who believe in a moral right to
health care often adopt a weaker argument, which instead suggests that everyone is
entitled the right to a “decent minimum” of basic health care resources (Vaughn, 544).
In The Right to a Decent Minimum of Health Care , philosopher Allen Buchanan
describes the appealing nature of a decent minimum, while rejecting the notion that
individuals have a universal moral right to this minimal level of care. Instead, he believes
that it is a societal duty to establish such a decent minimum, not as an egalitarian right but
rather in the name of beneficence. He then offers an alternate strategy in which he
presents arguments for special rights, harm-prevention, prudential measures, and
enforced beneficence to justify a decent minimum without the universal right claim
(Buchanan). In this paper, I will address and disprove each of these arguments in order to
demonstrate that Buchanan’s strategy to justify a decent minimum of health care through
societal duty is neither rational nor effective.
Buchanan begins his paper with the assumption that “there is (at least) a right to a
decent minimum of health care” (Buchanan). Despite the attractiveness of this claim,

2
Buchanan argues that a decent minimum could never be put into practice unless it is
warranted by a defensible and coherent theory of justice. However, he holds that none of
the existing theories of justice provide a solid foundation on which to argue any universal
right to health care. He goes on to support this position by making a case against the most
important theories, including utilitarian arguments, Rawlsian ideal contract arguments,
and an equal opportunity argument by Normal Daniels. Under a utilitarian system of
justice, Buchanan reasons that such theory would fail to provide a decent minimum of
care to everyone, and that those incapable of providing social utility may be denied even
the most minimal access. He denounces Rawls’ ideal contract theory on the grounds of
ambiguity, as it fails to establish content for the decent minimum beyond the intuitive
agreement that it is a right. Similarly, he finds Daniel’s equal opportunity invalid for
failure to adequately define the “normal opportunity range” that the decent minimum
would uphold (Buchanan).