
Professor Tibbles Addresses Ohio Health Ethics Advisory Committee
Building on the work of Tom L. Beauchamp & James F. Childress, Professor Tibbles turned first to two arguments supporting a right to health care: (1) an argument from collective social protection – threats to health care are similar to threats from crime, fire, and pollution and also society’s provision of education for children to overcome an incapacity from a lack of education, which is similar to an incapacity from a lack of health; and (2) arguments from fair opportunity – which support collective social protection by appeal to the fair opportunity rule to overcome lack of opportunity caused by unpredictable misfortune. Turning to the scope of the right to health care, Professor Tibbles identified two views: (1) a right of equal access to health care, and (2) a right to a decent minimum of health care. Professor Tibbles argued that the “decent minimum” or “adequate level” of health care offers an acceptable compromise among libertarian, utilitarian, communitarian, and egalitarian ethical theories by incorporating some moral premises common to each. Relying on philosopher John Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness, Professor Tibbles used Rawls’ conceptions of “original position” and “veil of ignorance” to suggest how to structure a just two-tiered system of health care. |
Faculty |