Is Healthcare A Human Right? A Christian Perspective
Photo: Vidal Balielo Jr.
The claim is often made today (as on those infamous “We Believe” yard signs) that “healthcare is a human right.” What does that really mean, and is it true?
What it means: The government should provide free healthcare to everyone, without qualification or exception. That, anyway, is what the slogan is getting at, in my estimation. Besides this unspoken conclusion, the slogan is also implying a few unspoken premises, namely, that human rights should be provided to every human, and that it’s the government’s duty to provide them. The argument could be laid out like this:
Premise 1 (implied): Human rights should be provided to every human.
Premise 2 (implied): It’s the government’s duty to provide human rights.
Premise 3 (stated): Healthcare is a human right.
Conclusion (implied): The government should provide free healthcare to everyone.
Many people argue for or against the idea of government-provided healthcare on practical or pragmatic grounds, aiming to prove that it is or is not cost effective, or that it results in better or worse quality care. But that’s really only worth discussing if it’s been established that government-provided healthcare is an option—meaning, that it is neither morally required on one hand nor morally prohibited on the other. So the first thing to ask is whether it is morally required, that is to say, whether it’s a right. To the point of the slogan, if healthcare is a right, then it doesn’t matter how much it costs, or anything else. If it’s a human right, then it must be provided to people, because that’s presumably what it would mean for something like healthcare to be a human right (though actually, as we’ll see, “provided” is not really the right word). So let’s consider in some detail: what is a human right, and does healthcare fit the definition?
Human Rights vs. Commodities
A human right is anything to which you’re morally entitled on account of you being a living human being. This includes the rights to life, to liberty, to property, and to the presumption of innocence, to name a few. How do we know what rights we have, and how do we know that the reason we have them is because we’re humans? The Christian worldview has the answer to that question (and I daresay it’s the only worldview with a coherent answer). Here it is:
While the Bible doesn’t ever use the expression “human rights,” it does talk a lot about God’s expectations for how we (humans) treat one another. And that’s really what human rights are: it’s how humans ought to be treated by other humans. So, we can discern our human rights in the Bible through God’s relevant commands. For example, in the Ten Commandments, God says, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). That means it is our responsibility not to wrongfully kill someone or cause someone’s death through carelessness or neglect. The implication: people have the right to not be wrongfully killed. Stated positively, people have the right to life. Another example: God says, “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15). That means we each have the responsibility to not take without permission what doesn’t belong to us. In other words, people have the right to not have their things taken by others. The implication: some things rightfully belong to specific people. Stated differently, people have the right to property. A third example could be drawn from God’s command that “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). From this it is clear that either kidnapping someone or forcing someone into involuntary slavery is evil. Stated differently, people have the right to liberty. And thus we could go on, discerning our specific rights from the pages of Scripture.
Importantly, we can also discern from those pages that these rights are ours by virtue of our humanity. How so? Because we are not given the same commands for how to treat other, non-human creatures. For example, if someone kills an animal, it is not murder. If someone takes a fruit from a tree, it is not stealing from the tree. If someone takes a rock to put in his rock collection, the rock’s freedoms are not violated. Animals, plants, and other parts of creation don’t have the same rights to life, or property, or liberty. We simply don’t have the same responsibilities toward them as we have toward our fellow humans. (Now, we do have responsibilities toward non-humans, and they therefore do have rights — but they are not the same responsibilities and rights as humans have toward each other.) So, there are some rights that relate specifically and exclusively to humans, and can therefore be called human rights.
Now that we’ve defined what a human right is, let’s define another term relevant to this discussion: commodity.
A commodity is an economic good or service, which exists only insofar as someone produces and provides it, and someone consumes it. Basically, that includes anything you can buy, tangible or intangible—physical or non-physical products, or services performed.
Now, is it possible to have a human right to a commodity? No, it’s not. Since rights exist as intrinsic to human nature, prior to the existence of any commodities, you can’t have a right to a commodity. If it helps, think of it like this: say there is only one human being in the world (as there once was—his name was Adam). On account of that human existing, he already has all of his human rights. He is already fully entitled to everything that he can be entitled to as it pertains to him being a human. Why? Because he is a human. Also, all of his human rights are perfectly intact. Why? Because there are no other humans around to violate them. But at that first moment of his existence, notice what he doesn’t have: he doesn’t have any commodities. He has all of his rights, none of which are violated, but he doesn’t have any commodities. Therefore, it is impossible to have a human right to a commodity.
In case that was confusing, let me restate it more simply (hopefully): you can only have a human right to something that properly belongs to you merely because you are a human. Since no commodities belong to anyone merely because he or she is a human, a commodity cannot be a human right. — And that’s why, when talking about human rights, “provided“ is not the right word. Rather, human rights are something already possessed, and therefore cannot be “provided“ but must be “protected.” Anything that is not possessed to begin with, and must therefore be provided, cannot be a human right.
What about healthcare?
Now ask: is healthcare a right, or a commodity? Is healthcare something that that one lonely human had at his first moment of existence merely by nature of being a human, or is it a service that only exists insofar as someone provides it and someone consumes it? The answer is obvious. Healthcare is a service, which means it is a commodity. And since it is impossible to have a human right to a commodity, it is impossible for healthcare to be a human right.
This point alone soundly refutes the slogan, and defeats any notion that government-provided healthcare is morally required. But that doesn’t mean it will end the argument, because even with a defeated premise, many may still want to maintain their conclusion, that the government ought to provide free healthcare to everyone. So, they may try a different argument, like claiming that healthcare should be a legal right. (That would be another fallacious claim, since legal rights are only just insofar as they protect fundamental rights—e.g., human rights.) But if they’re going to change tacks like that, they ought to first admit that healthcare is not a human right. And then, to be intellectually honest, they ought to abandon this slogan thenceforth.
But what about sick people?
Someone may respond, “Forget all this philosophical goobly gook! People need healthcare! If the government doesn’t provide it, who’s going to help people be healthy?”
Fair enough, the average person who says that healthcare is a human right may not be thinking of all the philosophical implications. They may just want people to be taken care of. (Or they may just want others to think they care about people being taken care of — i.e., virtue signaling.) But to this objection, let me say a couple of things.
First, if this concern that people have for others’ health is truly coming from a pure motivation, then it is commendable. In fact, I would point out that that impulse is very Christian. Jesus Christ said that one of the greatest commandments is to love your neighbor as yourself (Matt 22:44-40; Mark 12:28-31)—and if that means anything, it certainly means caring about other people’s health. And the fact that other people’s welfare is a Christian thing to care about is the very reason that, practically speaking, the government doesn’t need to be so involved in healthcare. Christians (and people who share these Christian values) would take care of this. Indeed, the first hospitals in history were founded by Christians for Christian reasons, and a faith-based origin remains a common theme among many modern hospitals. A quick search for hospitals in Louisville, KY, for example, pulls up such results as Baptist Health, Mary & Elizabeth Hospital, Norton Hospital, Peace Hospital, and Jewish Hospital, all of which have religious roots. I point that out simply to say, as long as Christians and Christian influence are around, the motivation to care for others’ health would be present even when government involvement is not.
Second, let’s all agree on this: the need for people to be taken care of does not negate the need to think properly and carefully about the things you say. You can’t just go around declaring things to be human rights willy nilly just because you want people to have those things, just as you can’t go around declaring different colors “blue” just because you wish they were your favorite color. “Human rights” has a meaning, just has “blue” has a meaning.
If you love this post (or if you hate it enough to tell all your friends), share the link on your social media! And be sure to tag me: