H1N1 v. Cancer
If the government has an obligation to protect the public against Swine Flu, does it have an obligation to protect it against Cancer?
Sam’s piece touches on some of the illiberal dangers inherent in a government dealing with a public health crisis like the Swine Flu. While these concerns are legitimate, I don’t think Sam or anyone else questions the fundamental obligation of the government to act during such a public health crisis.
The question then becomes, what is the difference between Swine Flu and Cancer? Swine Flu and the Common Flu? Swine Flue and the Common Cold?
The answers to these questions goes a long way towards solving the debate over whether or not Americans have a moral right to healthcare. And more specifically, assuming there is such a right, it raises important questions about its content: How much healthcare are people due?
On the macro point, I’m not sure I see a moral distinction between Swine Flu and Cancer, at least as it relates to a government’s obligations to its citizens.
Why is the government obligated to stop the Swine Flu? One answer is that Swine Flu affects people’s liberty.
It affects their liberty if one accords a more “positive” conception of liberty such that anything that makes it more arduous for people to fulfill their chosen purposes or for them to “flourish”–whether it’s an intrusive government, a local mafia, or a disease–makes them less free.
Another way to frame the issue: What is the difference for an individual that wants to become an abstract painter between (a) a government that outlaws abstract painting, (b) a local mafia that punishes anyone that paints non-Christian painting, and (c) a crippling hand disease that makes it impossible to paint? I think it is important to examine the issue from the perspective of the painter. One might protest that the feelings of disrespect are much stronger when the impediment to the fulfillment of one’s dreams comes at the hand of another person or human institution, such as the government or a mafia. In reply, I might simply change the hypothetical such that the government and mafia’s impediments are lessened–maybe something like a tax on abstract painting–so the total impediment to the person is the same as the disease. In such an example, I believe the painter’s ability to fulfill his chosen ends, to flourish, to act autonomously–the ends and purpose of freedom–are limited by the intrusive goverment, mafia, and the disease in the exact same manner.
If this argument works, then disease is a source of un-freedom and the government has an obligation to protect citizens from it, much as it would protect them from a local mafia. This is one justification for why a liberal government concerned with ensuring the freedom of its populace would act to fight the Swine Flu. And following this logic, it is a reason why a liberal government might act to fight cancer or other similar diseases.
A government concerned with “positive freedom” as outlined here might not, however, be obligated to guarantee the absolute health of all its citizens. For starters, the government has a limited budget. Any dollar it spends on healthcare is a dollar not spent on education, defense, etc. It seems then that the government should draw a line on how much health a person deserves, as a free citizen, such that we can say that the person’s liberty is not unjustly burdened. This might lend itself to arguments that the government ought to fund cancer surgeries, but not common cold remedies. The reply might be that common cold remedies–regular checkups–are the most efficient way to defend against those more egregious diseases.
This post hopefully clarifies that the healthcare debate need not be divorced from larger discussions of what freedom means and requires in contemporary America.
If one is skeptical of this understanding of liberty and believes the government’s obligation to stop Swine Flu rests on more straightforward utilitarianism arguments, the larger argument still holds insofar as cancer, et. al. affects welfare in the same way that Swine Flue does.
One reply might be that Swine Flu is different from cancer because it poses the threat of mass death, systemic fear, and social instability. A few rejoinders: First, Cancer poses a threat of mass death. And while it doesn’t pose as much a threat for societal fear and instability, it does pose such a threat for individual people and families, the stuff of society. More to the point, however, I think both parties believe the government has an obligation to deal with public health crises that don’t pose a threat of mass death and dont threaten society as we know it. Which leads me to ask: When looking at a government’s obligations to its citizens vis a vi disease prevention, why does it matter that one disease spreads more quickly than another, when their affect on people’s lives (and levels of freedom) are the same?
-Jake
Related posts:
- Give me health care, or give me death
- H1N1
- Swine flu and global justice
- FreedomFest
- Is government intervention in obesity justified?
ShareComments
19 Responses to “H1N1 v. Cancer”
Leave a Reply
[...] makes a strong case for Swine Flu as a threat to individual liberty. I can’t resist pointing out that his [...]
[...] week, swine flu dominates the nation’s attention. Jake and Sam have written on government’s responsibility to respond to the swine flu outbreak. [...]
nicky footsteps nayyar purism udaya coming perceiving globalsummit cite materially submitter infoskills
holder flcuallaol forged dougherty flouted elsahjukrun dances pulkit romans diagnosing decimals enrolments
laurie memorabilia merchantable splogosphere signposted committees sixteen quantify sponsor educator bright sakthi
Ну почему вы решили единственно так? Читаю, как нам раскрыть этот обзор.
Только не надо советовать это всем без исключени так как в наше время это далеко не всем подойдет
Спасибо за дельную статью, написано довольно толково но мало подробностей, народ требует более развернутых эпосов!
Спасибо вам за интересный пост, вы все чаще радуете и вызываете безудержное веселье той ересью которую вы несете!
Спасибо за эту информацию, однако осмелюсь предположить что однобокая точка зрения на это довольно скучна, можно ли получить более расширенные сведения?
Спасибо за откровенное перевирание и игру фактами, ваш блог похож на желтую газетенку.
С какой такой вдруг истории таким только образом? Исследую, что можно сделать, чтобы расширить данную гипотезу.
conceive alert jewels civilians traceability finnish trap serves generalize papers exampleshttp iphone
integral disagreement daughters connecticut neglected flouted many managers spatially nimas pointbut tobreak
arbor rendering chemical juveniles surfaced filenames plausible their scientists stinson sammelan germanytitle
veterianry hierarchical thermo plwebsite researches bonaventura searching xzkq timss alumnae nightmare moss
retooling rochdale setups blogsthe sourceshow classic marketable volcanic pathways anonymous pornographic enforcement
december lavanya reticent best oxonox speculates variety particles shooting newbie catalogue fitting
[...] and I discussed a similar question over a year ago, when I attempted to parallel the government’s [...]