The Good, The Bad, And Universal Health Care
If ones should desire to do a good, and then does it, even if some evil would profit from that good, one is not culpable for the way evil uses that good. For example, God created gave humanity existence, and that existence is good. However, we have abused that good. We have taken what was given to us and used it to do evil. The good of God’s creating humanity is not undermined because humanity has abused their existence and sinned; human existence is still a good despite what we have done with it.
On the other hand, we must remember the ends do not justify the means. If one wills to do some evil, and then does it, even if some good comes out of it, they are guilty of the evil they actually committed. The good which comes out of it does not justify the evil. St. Augustine pointed out that all evil is done with the intention of some inordinate good, and so all evil tries to justify itself by that good. However, because one wills to do evil, one is culpable for that evil, and therefore, there is no justification for doing it. For example, one cannot release a genetically specific virus that will kill all of one racial group (say, for example, Arabs) just because you think killing them would bring about world peace.
Consequentialism is about the defense of an evil because of the good which can come out of it. If one, however, defends a good which happens to be later abused, one is not following consequntialistic ethics, but rather, defending traditional morality. Giving birth to Jack the Ripper was a good, even though Jack the Ripper eventually went out on one of the most famous killing sprees in modern history. If one should argue that Jack should have been aborted in his mother’s womb, because of the great evil he did in his life, one is arguing consequentially; the one who refutes this is not defending evil, but the good of birth, and therefore, not thinking as a consequentialist.
Of course, working in the real world is not so simple, and most choices we make are of mixed moral worth. We must act upon the dictates of moral philosophy with practical reason. That means, though we might not always be acting in formal cooperation with evil, we still might be acting in material cooperation with evil. We must try to avoid both, though to do so, with the complex interdependent web of action we find ourselves in, it is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid material cooperation with evil. We must rank the evils and the moral value associated with each evil, so that then and only then can we act in prudence and try to do that which is of the least evil and of the most good.
Since our knowledge and reasoning ability varies with one another, one person’s prudential decisions will differ from another’s. This is not to say there are not general concerns which should be in the forefront of all decision making: there are. They are those evils of great moral weight. Evils which are grave are of a far greater consequence than those evils which are not grave, even if the grave evil is not intrinsically evil and the intrinsically evil action is not grave (for example, entering an unjust war is a far greater matter than saying a white lie, even though lies are intrinsically evil and wars are not).
Now, this has some practical application in the recent health care debates. One of the arguments I read against universal health care is that it might (!) lead to more abortions (though of course, the other side of the argument is that it might lead to less abortions). Even if this would happen, that there would be more abortions because of the passage of some great health care initiative (let’s take all other considerations of it) this by itself does not make one’s vote for health care one in formal cooperation with evil. If more abortions did happen, one could argue there was remote material cooperation, but remote material cooperation is not of the same gravity direct, intended support for abortion.
Connected to the above argument is the idea that even if a bill should be put in play that would fund a universal health care system, and it would have a structure put in place so that the health care system would not fun abortion, even this bill cannot be accepted because “in the future, the abortion restrictions might be lifted.” This goes even further away from acceptable political discourse, because it basically says that we cannot accept any law because in the future, the law can be changed, so that even good laws are just potential evil laws. Because of what might happen in the future, we can’t work for some good now. If someone went the other way around were to say that we should accept an evil bill which is all about the creation of a medical fund which will only be used to fund abortions because in the future, we might one day remove the abortion aspect of the funding and make it into a bill about general medical funding, we would be right in rejecting such an argument. The second argument hopefully demonstrates why the first is illegitimate, though both are consequentialist arguments, because one is arguing for some evil for the sake of some possible good. Both are also clear examples of why political discourse must be tampered with reality and not with hypothetical speculations, otherwise, there is no end to the debates, and all kinds of excuses can always be given for any action.
Of course there might be other reasons to not support a specific bill promoting universal health care than on the issues of abortion. But we must remember the arguments must be sound and reasonable, based upon real goods, and one which acknowledges the good of universal health care and suggests a better way to get to it. One thing which a Catholic cannot do, however, is reject the call for universal health care. To do so is to exit the pro-life cause. Without proper insurance, many people are not given the care they need, and are dying because of it. Insurance companies regularly deny coverage of all kinds of pre-conditions, allowing for the wholesale slaughter of innocents. Their blood cries out. Will we listen?
Comments are closed.
Connected to the above argument is the idea that even if a bill should be put in play that would fund a universal health care system, and it would have a structure put in place so that the health care system would not fun abortion, even this bill cannot be accepted because “in the future, the abortion restrictions might be lifted.”
Has anyone put forth such an argument? I sure haven’t seen it.
John
I was trying to reflect upon this post by Deal Hudson in that comment: http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Proportionalism-and-the-Health-Care-Bill.html&Itemid=127 — in it, he said, among other things, “I could still not support it. Why? I am prudentially certain federal funding for abortion would follow — because of the public option — in due course. ” I’ve seen it argued by others as well, but this is the most direct example I can give offhand.
OK, then yes, that is a basic failure to trust that Truth will prevail.
You guys here have come close to on of the better arguments for government involvement in helath care. That currently, we do subsidize abortion coverage through our insurance premiums, and this would be an opportunity to get out of that.
Unfortunately, what some folks here have done is instead say that pro-lifers shouldn’t be upset about the idea of government funding of abortion because we already do so.
I think we need to trust that ultimately Truth will prevail, and people will come to share our concern for unborn life. Hudson instead councils despair, that we will continue to move in the pro-choice direction, and that government funding of health care will inevitably lead to government funding of abortion.
I guess this is because to some conservatives, “government = bad.” Maybe we can demonstrate otherwise.
Unfortunately, what some folks here have done is instead say that pro-lifers shouldn’t be upset about the idea of government funding of abortion because we already do so.
John McG,
Speaking only for myself and not for “some folks,” I think it is quite reasonable for pro-lifers (or anyone else) to want to make sure health care reform does not bring about government funding of abortion. Although I don’t think it is the case the American Bishops should be making, I do think that it is reasonable, after more than thirty years of the Hyde Amendment, to extend the principle of the Hyde Amendment to health care reform. What I object to is going beyond the Hyde Amendment and trying to put so much distance between the government and abortion that people will be unable to get abortion coverage and pay for it with their own money.
I do think, though, that anyone who currently contributes toward insurance coverage for himself that provides abortion coverage and does not get rid of it needs to get rid of the beam in his own eye before he worries about the speck in someone else’s.
Putting the abortion issue aside, I would still be inclined against.
I believe that more people will die in the long term from implementation of the proposed reform, due to its long-term deleterious effect on incentives for quality, innovation, competition, and customer satisfaction in medicine, than would have died under a continued status quo, which I also dislike.
Worse, the proposed plan(s) would tend to set in stone a particular (wrongheaded) approach to “reform,” setting in place government entitlements which tend to be irrevocable. This would have the effect of permanently preventing a less-wrongheaded reform from ever being implemented.
So I read this not as an example of doing a good thing even though, so sorry, some bad things will come of it. I read this as an example of doing a damn fool stupid thing, knowing bad things will come of it, but wanting to feel better about ourselves because, “Hey, even if it didn’t work, at least we tried to do something.”
Excelsior
The response you give makes me wonder if you read the discussion or not. Your horror stories about universal health care being worse than non-health care given by people who have insurance is rather interesting — though of course, based not on fact. When one looks at systems with better health care, which is not entirely reliant upon the good will of businesses looking for a profit, there still remains ingenuity and medical development, but more important, better overall health care for everyone (and not just the elect few). Now one can argue that the current health care bill is not good enough; it isn’t. But is it better than the status quo? Just saying that it will have a long-term effect on medicine is not an answer, because that claim is proven false in other such systems.
You are out of line by saying that a Catholic cannot ‘reject the call for universal health care.’ Your definition of ‘proper insurance’ may differ from another’s definition of proper health care.
Cathy
No, I am not out of line in saying Catholics cannot reject the call for universal health care. It follows through Catholic Social Teaching. What they can do is question how it should be achieved. But the Church has made it clear that basic health care is a right in relation to human dignity, just as food and shelter is.
This, for example, is why the Vatican is able to talk about end-of-life care and nutrition. If health care is not a right, then the nutrition question is over. For it can’t be demanded, since it is not a right! But the whole point is that the dignity of human life is to be preserved, and health care is exactly a part of that process. When health care is denied to people, who die without it, that is euthanasia, which is rejected. This can be confirmed here: ““The sick person in a vegetative state, awaiting recovery or a natural end, still has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.), and to the prevention of complications related to his confinement to bed. ” http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070801_nota-commento_en.html
Now that points to the fact that one kind of sick has the RIGHT to basic health care; but our system already denies this. Which way will I go? The right to the health care. But why is it given to the vegetative person? Because it is to be given to all persons; the vegetative one is one who is often questioned as the “case where it might no longer count.” But even in the case where it “might not even count” it is shown to count. Thus, we easily see a right to basic health care as promoted by the Church in her Gospel for Life.
This is why the USCCB declares, “In our Catholic tradition, health care is a basic human right. Access to health care should not depend on where a person works, how much a family earns, or where a person lives.” http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/position.shtml This can be confirmed by many other sources as well, the USCCB is not making this claim out of nowhere, but it is found within the pro-life message of the Church. It is the same right to life for the sick as for the child in the womb!
**addendum: The USCCB point to PACEM IN TERRIS – an encyclical, and this is what Pope John XXIII has to say: “But first We must speak of man’s rights. Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of illhealth; disability stemming from his work; widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood.”
Just an example where this right IS clearly established within CST, and connects it directly to the right to life, as it should!
You are confusing universal healthcare with the concept of receiving healthcare. In our country, people can still receive healthcare without health insurance or universal healthcare. While I do not promote the total absence of health insurance, I believe that the degree of health insurance for individuals should be optional. Universal healthcare (one size fits all) is not a cure for this country’s problems, and belief in it is not a requirement for a Catholic.
Furthermore, people constantly criticize how health insurance has broken our country’s healthcare system and then promote a system of health insurance to fix the problem. Some Americans receive healthcare with minimal health insurance and get along fine. Others, receive more comprehensive health insurance and get along the same.
Cathy
“In our country, people can still receive healthcare without health insurance or universal healthcare.” Some do, many do not. Many who have real life-threatening diseases are turned away, due either to insurance or due to the fact that they don’t have any insurance. Those who have the funding do get better healthcare, and survive in ways those who do not do not. Here is an example: poor women not getting cancer screenings and being turned away from them (http://www.inform.com/article/Poor%20being%20turned%20away%20from%20free%20cancer%20screenings ). That’s just one example where people are indeed NOT getting needed healthcare due to lack of proper health care coverage. Here’s someone who will not be able to respond to your response: http://juliepierce-sicko.blogspot.com/2007/07/tracy-pierce-sr-what-you-havent-seen-or.html (killed due to lack of health care). http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Teen_dies_after_insurance_nixes_transplant_1221.html Another person who was turned away from care. Don’t say people are not being turned away.
That there is need for a universal, basic level of health care, as I have pointed it, is indeed something which we do not see being met in the US. The idea that “no one is turned away” is false. Notice what I said “basic level of health care.” The fact that “some people are just fine with this system” is not a good argument. In all systems, there will always be people who are “just fine.” The Church, however, tells us that we are not settled with “just fine” and that there IS a preferential option for the poor.
People in countries with universal healthcare die waiting for treatment if they are even approved for treatment. Universal healthcare is not the answer to these problems. With this type of coverage, people will get left out as well.
And people with insurance die while waiting for medical treatment. That’s true. That’s beside the point. The point is that in those systems with universal health care, more people are given the care they need, and unlike all the claims to the contrary, they work FAR better than our profiteering system of health care. That is the issue. Health care is a right, not a thing for profiteering.
It is interesting to hear people comment on how much better the healthcare is in other countries. I wonder why they fly to the Mayo clinic to receive healthcare. Why don’t they stay in their own countries?
Profiteering is an interesting concept as well. Most people I know work to provide for their basic needs and save for retirement-including those in healthcare professions. Business owners make profits to do the same and to sustain the life of their companies. Funny how we criticize profits for without, the government would have no taxes to fund social programs (including universal healthcare).
Cathy
Shouldn’t it be obvious? The same reason why US people will go to specialist clinics outside of the US, if they can afford to do so, which deal with their own specific illness. It is quite normal for the rich who pay their way and can afford to do so anywhere to go around the world for health.
On the other hand, it is also true that, for basic health concerns, many Americans are going outside of the US (Mexico, Canada), and getting what they need when rejected in the US. Why is it if there is no such issue?
Health care is a right, not a thing for profiteering.
That sounds really good, but I’m not sure those two things are mutually exclusive.
Unless you think the markets for food, shelter, and clothing should be dismantled.
John
I do not support an entirely pure, capitalist free market. Nor does the Church. There is room for a limited market, to be sure, as long as the basic needs are still being distributed to those in need. Indeed, history shows once capitalism got into force, laws which allowed the poor to live off the land were changed, and they were fined and punished if they lived in traditional fashion. Once capitalism took control, the poor did indeed suffer. This is not to say (once again) there is no role for a limited market, but it would be restricted according to the dictates of the moral law, not the law of economic gain.
The obvious point is that healthcare is not better in the countries with universal healthcare. Those citizens still come to America to get treated. If their system was much better, they would not have a need for ours. As far as treatment in Mexico and Canada, I only know of people from these countries seeing treatment in the US.
I disagree with your statement on the Church and capitalism. Capitalism gives people the freedom to use their individual talents and provide for themselves using those talents.
Cathy, just because there are particular needs, that does not deal with average health care and the situation for basic health care issues. They come for specialists, just as people go to other countries for their own specialists. And, as I said, people who are rich in other nations will go to places where the rich can pay to get ahead of others, even if the others are in greater need; that doesn’t say ours is better, it only says it is better to give it to those who pay.
As for capitalism, here is a quote: “Indeed, there is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure, and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces.” Enough said.
In the old USSR, government controlled production and people stood in line to purchase a loaf of bread. I will take capitalism any day and make my own bread!
In the US, many people are on the streets without any bread, nor a stove to cook it in.
I have a question for you Henry. If you are so unhappy with the idea of American capitalism, why don’t you find a country that you like?
Cathy,
Not that argument. If St Justin Martyr didn’t like how Rome killed Christians, why didn’t he and the Christians leave Rome? Seriously, one of the best solutions is to work for improvement from within, and criticize the problems. To flee a land just because you don’t like its political or economic situation is the act of a coward. And, beyond there, where exactly is there to go?
My question to you is, do you think a Catholic should listen to Catholic Social Teaching if it counters Americanism? If so, what do you do with your “don’t like the American system” question? (After all, American capitalism includes the selling of abortion; I don’t like it, do you?) Or do you think American capitalism trumps Catholic principles?
In regard to the conrolled production and distribution vs. capitalism, I would be more than happy to make extra bread. I would sell the extra bread and even give some away to my neighbor who cannot afford to buy his own bread. With Capitalism, I am free to sell and give on my own and I can enjoy this. This would be enjoyable because the government did not force me to give it anyone and I was allowed to do it from my own free will — out of love!
Cathy
So there should be no laws to establish the common good; there should only be the law of the jungle and issues of justice are to be ignored by the state? We should let people decide if they should kill someone else or not with their own free will, out of love, and not out of force? The whole point is that the state is called to the common good, to establish justice, and that includes just structures to help deal with abuse. The free market has no such structures, and has constant abuse when left to its own devices. BTW, do not confuse “markets” with “capitalism,” for you can have markets without capitalism.
I believe in fair laws. Markets in a system other than capitalism are controlled by the government. Some of the laws the federal government is trying to establish would be best handled by individual states. Some would best be not enacted at all.
Since we are a diverse country, a federal law(such as one establishing universal healthcare) could very well destroy the standard of living for one family as it brings it up for another family. Therefore, I do not support some of the current legislation in congress.
I also believe that someone too poor to buy bread today, can change their standard of living with capitalism. The system could allow them to enhance their standard of living so they become self supporting.