Scribd
Upload
65 views4 pages

Dehumanization Is The Worst Impact. Berube Explains. This Means-Ends Dispute Is at The Core of

Universal healthcare would harm the medical community and lead to dehumanization, according to the document. It argues that: 1) Universal healthcare would lower doctors' incomes and burden them with high amounts of debt from medical school that they cannot pay off. This could negatively impact the quality of medical care. 2) It would treat doctors as a means to an end of universal healthcare rather than individuals, going against principles of morality. 3) By not accounting for differences in treatment outcomes and prioritizing those worst off, it could discriminate against some groups and fail to incentivize life-saving innovations, potentially costing lives.

Uploaded by

deankieserman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
65 views4 pages

Dehumanization Is The Worst Impact. Berube Explains. This Means-Ends Dispute Is at The Core of

Universal healthcare would harm the medical community and lead to dehumanization, according to the document. It argues that: 1) Universal healthcare would lower doctors' incomes and burden them with high amounts of debt from medical school that they cannot pay off. This could negatively impact the quality of medical care. 2) It would treat doctors as a means to an end of universal healthcare rather than individuals, going against principles of morality. 3) By not accounting for differences in treatment outcomes and prioritizing those worst off, it could discriminate against some groups and fail to incentivize life-saving innovations, potentially costing lives.

Uploaded by

deankieserman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

I negate the resolution The United States ought to guarantee Universal Healthcare

to its citizens.
I value morality: Because ought is defined as a moral obligation. Morality is defined
contracts *
1. Morality is supposed to do these three things and requires compliance first and
foremost. If morality is assumed to be a distinction between right and wrong, we
need to have reason why actions are right or wrong. Morality loses all meaning
unless people dont follow it. Thus, a precondition for is morality is functionality.
Morality needs to motivate us to comply with it.
2. This leads to the morality being created by contracts. Contractiarianism implies a
mutual benefit between both parties with mutual restraint. . Contracts between
specific groups in society benefit all because they allocate benefits based on
different positions in modern culture. UHC creates more burdens to those in medical
professions because it demands constant care to one group in society from another.
This is problematic
Gauthier13explains:
Butthestrengthsofacontractariantheorymayseemtobeaccompaniedbygraveweaknesses.Wehavealreadynotedthatfor

acontractarian,moralityrequiresa

contextofmutualbenefit.JohnLockeheldthat'anHo`bbist...willnoteasilyadmitagreatmanyplaindutiesofmorality'.AndthismayseemequallytoapplytotheHobbist's
moderndaysuccessor.Ourtheorydoesnot

assume[s]anyfundamentalconcernwithimpartiality,butonlyaconcernderivativefromthe

benefitsofagreement,andthosebenefitsaredeterminedbytheeffectthateachpersoncan
haveontheinterestsofherfellows.Onlybeingswhosephysicalandmentalcapacitiesareeitherroughly
equalormutuallycomplementarycanexpecttofindcooperationbeneficialtoall.Humansbenefitfromtheirinteractionwithhorses,but
Amongunequals,onepartymaybenefitmostbycoercingthe

theydonotcooperatewithhorsesandmaynotbenefitthem.

other,andonourtheorywouldhavenoreasontorefrain.Wemaycondemnallcoerciverelationships,butonly
withinthecontextofmutualbenefitcanourcondemnationappealtoarationallygrounded
morality.
Ifthereisnomutualbenefit,thereisnomorality.Inthiscasethereisnovalidequalstanding
betweenpartiesinaUniversalHealthcareContract,thusthereisnomoralitytoUniversal
Healthcare.
Thus my value criterion is minimizing dehumanizatiion. Dehumanization is the
worst impact. Berube explains. This means-ends dispute is at the core of Montagu and
1 Ibid.

Matson's treatise on the

dehumanization of humanity. They warn: "its destructive toll is already

greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record -- and its
potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond
calculation. For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be called the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse.... Behind the genocide of
the holocaust lay a dehumanized thought; beneath the menticide of deviants and dissidents... in the cuckoo's next of
America, lies a dehumanized image of man... (Montagu & Matson, 1983, p. xi-xii). While it may never be possible to quantify the impact dehumanizing
ethics may have had on humanity, it is safe to conclude the foundations of humanness offer great opportunities which would be foregone. When we
calculate the actual losses and the virtual benefits, we approach a nearly inestimable value greater than any tools which we can currently use to
measure it. Dehumanization is nuclear war, environmental apocalypse, and international genocide.

When people become things,

they become dispensable. When people are dispensable, any and every atrocity can be
justified. Once justified, they seem to be inevitable for every epoch has evil and
dehumanization is evil's most powerful weapon.
Dehumanization is the first priority in any case.
Contention 1. Universal Healthcare Harms the Medical Community.
Subpoint a. Doctors dont like this.
Dr. OShea, on speaking with Universal Health Care, writes: Compared to the

private sector, government programs are inefficient, and the higher


costs have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other
areas such as defense, education, or even medical research and
development. This is a tradeoff that most Americans would not be
willing to make.
There is a second problem with How Universal Healthcare interacts with medical
professions need to earn a high income to get out of the debt which medical school
has put them in.
West, C. P.; Shanafelt, T. D.; Kolars, J. C. (2011).

In a survey with more than 15,000 residents in internal medicine, approximately


19% of residents with more than $200,000 in debt designated their quality of life as
bad, compared with approximately 12% of those with no debt. [24] Also, residents
with more than $200,000 in loans scored 5 points lower on Internal Medicine In
Training Exam than those who were debt-free.
The average income for a doctor is 80,000 to 100,000 dollars per year. After taxes
the income will be between 60000-80000 dollars. After residency, they will have to
spend 50,000 dollars just to stop the debt from growing. Universal Heathcare will
ultimately, hurt doctors annual income. And more importantly, it will not help it.
Subpoint b. There is no justification to put medical professionals into this position,
where they are treated as a class of means to a larger end.

Haque and Waytz write


We first turn to nonfunctional causes of dehumanization.

One major factor presumed to

cause dehumanization is Deindividuation whereby an individual


becomes immersed in a group or otherwise anonynmized. Deindividuation
causes dehumanization in two ways through Deindividuation of the person
being perceived or through Deindividuation of the perceiver.
Deindividuation can lead people toward antisocial behavior such as
interpersonal aggression through diminishing feelings of personal
responsibility for these actions. Similarly Deindividuation of the target
being perceived licenses antisocial behavior toward this target. Because
the target becomes identifiable
Later they continue
The deindividuation of caregivers leads them to become dehumanized.
Just as soldiers matching uniforms in battle diminish feelings of personal
culpability for action, caregivers in hospitals become anonymized amid a
sea of white coats, which subtly diffuses their individual responsibility
toward war patients.
Universal Healthcare would cause widespread dehumanization.
Supoint c. Through Dehumanization, they are forcing lives to be lossed.
Both QALYs and DALYs are designed to support a resource allocation framework that is largely utilitarian in its
orientation. In that capacity, the goal of each of the measures is to accurately represent outcomes that can be
generated most efficiently per dollar spent so that the total good for a population is maximized. Although an
efficiency-oriented approach maximizes overall health, however it is defined, the practical and distributional
implications of such an approach can be problematic to individuals and to particular subgroups who fare less well in
the HALY calculus. Several critiques of QALYs and DALYs highlight the ways in which these measures can be used
counter to societal values (1, 2, 25, 33, 58). Methodological problems that bear on ethical issues remain
contentious. We have previously flagged concerns about the sources of values (patients versus health experts
versus community members) and, in the case of DALYs, the use of differential age-based weights. Additional
objections that are primarily ethical in nature can be grouped into three broad categories (the first two of which are

QALYs and DALYs fail to give priority to those who are


worst off (e.g., on the basis of ill health or low social class); they
discriminate against people with limited treatment potential (e.g.,
those with preexisting disability or illness); and they fail to account
for qualitative differences in outcomes (e.g., life saving versus
health improving) because of the way in which morbid and mortal
outcomes are aggregated. In the first instance, critics argue that
HALYs, as currently calculated, discriminate against those members
of society who are already at health or social
distributional concerns):

disadvantage.

When Universal Healthcare fails to account for qualitive differences in


outcome, there is no way we can ever save more lives. There is a chance to
save a new life, by using a different surgery which is more efficient. This will
never happen. Even if Universal healthcare may save some lives here and
there, it will never set the precedent for the future to save more lives. When
some social groups, based on where they live or their social economic status,
it leads to dehumanization.
Furthermore, following subpoint a where doctors are at a financial loss, they
will be forced to try to make more money. General surgery, while effective is
a time burden and doctors such as physicians will deemphasize such. They
will be more inclined to deal with the general public of common colds.
Surgeries, though may say lives, will not be recommended by medical
professionals because of Universal Healthcare.

You might also like