An Ethical Dilemma Engendered by a Lack of Healthcare for some Americans

I was a junior in high school when I took my first class on ethics, and in that class I learned about and debated many ethical dilemmas. As I now ponder what is currently being said in the debate about healthcare, one particular ethical dilemma proves to have profound relevance to the debate, and it seems that this ethical dilemma, when considered, has fundamentally altered the way I conceptualize how and why healthcare reform must take place.

The ethical dilemma I am referring to was formally propounded by Lawrence Kohlberg and it asks whether it is ethical for someone to steal a drug that would save the life of a loved one who is dying, if he or she was unable to afford to purchase the drug. This ethical dilemma is presented in varieties of circumstances that are slightly altered for specific effect. I will paraphrase one of the more potent variations that caused me to rethink how I conceptualize the current healthcare debate.

Suppose an extremely lucrative pharmaceutical company has recently invented a drug that is able to cure a fatal illness that your child is currently suffering from. Your child has been give a week to live, but the drug would cure him or her. However, because of the child’s illness, no insurance company would provide affordable healthcare, and you cannot afford to purchase the medicine for the child.

This ethical dilemma gives rise to two questions. The first question is whether it is ethical for you to steal the drug, given your situation. The second question is whether you will steal the drug regardless of whether it is ethical. In our ethics class we never figured out whether it was ethical to steal the drug given the situation, but we did all agree that we would steal the drug regardless of the ethical consequences; we believed that saving a life was of greater importance than adhering to a certain ethic, if such an ethic allowed innocent people to die.

It has been over a decade since I first sat in that ethics class and tired to ponder what was ethical and unethical, and I still do not have a satisfactory answer to this ethical dilemma. However, I am beginning to find that this unsatisfactory feeling I have is not in myself and my ability to judge right from wrong. Instead, this unsatisfactory feeling is in my government and their complicity in allowing this ethical dilemma to become a reality for so many Americans.

I do not believe the actions of our government reflect the desires of the American people, and therefore, we do not have the government we deserve, but we have the government that we have allowed. At this moment, the debate over healthcare continues, but it does not take into consideration that this ethical dilemma has become a reality for so many. Furthermore, I am not sure how many of these Americans are choosing to behave ethically and are not attempting to steal medication that would save their lives. For many other Americans, the ethical dilemma is not that simple; it is not a drug that will save their life, instead it is an operation or a treatment that they cannot afford and no one else will pay for either. All of these lives go unsaved as the debate on healthcare continues.

It is these circumstances that I now consider when I ponder how America should engender universal healthcare for all of its members. I most certainly would not want to behave unethically when attempting to achieve healthcare for all—stealing is so base a crime, but if the outcome is that the life of someone I loved would be saved, the I most certainly would behave unethically. Yet, as soon as I admit this confession, I realize that my starting point and situation is what is unsatisfactory. The American people must dissolve the possibility that this ethical dilemma remains a reality for so many of us. Then our consciences can be cleared of one of the many unsatisfactory situations facing our people, and our brothers and sisters can either rest in health or convalesce.