knowing that I can't just go in and say "hey forget all this lets just have the government pay for it all!"
When I began reading the article, it immediately seemed to me that those in favor of covering transplants were not looking at all sides of the situation. It's easy to find a case where a person died because they were denied coverage for a major surgery. On the other hand, the people who are affected by lack of coverage for basic needs are not as easily counted. People living in poverty die all the time because they cannot afford health care, but it is difficult to point a finger at any one group of people. There are hidden deaths that are hard to be calculated. I've always heard that it's easier for people to relate to personal stories than numbers, and I think that a shocking story of someone dying because they were unable to afford a new heart is a lot more moving than just hearing that 700 people were denied medical coverage. It surprised me a little how utilitarian my viewpoint is on this case. AHCCCS should cover whatever would bring the most happiness to the most people, and as harsh as it sounds I think this means it may be necessary to deny money to those in need of transplants. A shocking story that tugs on our emotions should not be what changes policy, but rationality. It also struck me that if the opposite decision had been made, and all transplants were covered while others went without health care, someone (Michael Moore?) would still tell the dramatic story of the person who died because of the new Death Penalty on the innocent.
The other thing I had a hard time with was that I couldn't tell if there was a real dilemma or not. Some seemed to make it out to be a false dichotomy, forcing a choice between only covering a few transplants or giving basic care to many. However, there is a limited amount of funding, so at some point it seems inevitable that a decision must be made that ultimately comes down to this decision.
Christina,
ReplyDeleteI also was surprised at how I was taking the Utilitarian approach on this case as well. Especially when I feel the way I do with how unfair our helthcare system is in the United States and I don't really have the answer to our problems, and while I do think it is too late for me, I would like t see the healthcare system here get fixed for the younger generations.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI too belong to the crowd of "surprised utilitarians" in this case. I think this is mostly because the whole case was just making the best out of a bad situation. How they got into the financial crisis that brought on the choice of whether to cover transplants in the first place is a separate question, but once they were there I found myself unable to think of anything but utilitarian arguments as the best criteria for decision-making.
ReplyDeleteThis makes me think of myself as a Situational Utilitarian. Utilitarianism should only be a criteria when resources and options are clearly limited and it is beyond an individual's power to expand those options. It also only applies to policy-making. If this were a choice between an individual doctor choosing in a specific case whether to give a fifty year-old a transplant or to give a baby additional extra pre-natal health care, utilitarianism might dictate that the doctor choose pre-natal care, but I argue it would still be immoral. I say this because saving an individual's life is a clear good, whereas speculating about the future effects of improving one's pre-natal care is indeterminate at best. However, as a matter of POLICY, reason leads me to believe that on the aggregate the utilitarian choice of covering pre-natal care is much more likely to improve and save more people's lives than a few high-profile (and high cost) transplants. In this way, I find myself mixing utilitarian thoughts with my more dominant deontological perspective. I think this may be where we have common ground on this, Christina, Candi and Angela.