The soaring cost of health care, the limitations of the economy in
paying for health care, and the growing proportion of the population who
are over age 65, have given rise to serious discussion, at times
acrimonious, about the possible need to or the justice of rationing
health care to that age group. A common definition of rationing
is withholding some specific medical treatments for reasons other than a
patient’s desire to have the treatment (e.g., Medicare not paying for
certain treatments for very elderly patients).
In your discussion, you must, from the perspective of distributive
justice, summarize the major arguments on both sides (the pros and cons)
of the issue of whether health care should be rationed to the elderly.
You must also characterize these arguments according to whether they are
primarily libertarian, utilitarian, or egalitarian in nature. Finally,
you will evaluate these arguments from your view of distributive
justice, explaining both how your personal life experiences and your own
libertarian, utilitarian, or egalitarian views influence your
To help you successfully complete this discussion, review the following required resources:
- Callahan, D., & Nuland, S. B. (2011, June 19). The quagmire: How American medicine is destroying itself. The New Republic, 242(8), 16-18. Retrieved from the EBSCOhost database.
- Rationing by any other name: Reasons for resisting the push to limit medical care
- Should we ration end-of-life care? [Radio broadcast]
Your initial post should be at least 300 words in length. Support your
claims with examples from at least two of the required resources for
this discussion, and properly cite any references. Respond to at least
two of your classmates’ posts by Day 7 whose viewpoints are different
from yours. Each peer response must be at least 125 words. Stimulate
critical thinking by contrasting your perspective with your classmate's
and explaining yours, or by asking your classmate a question and
explaining why your question is significant.