Healthcare is NOT a basic human right. - Page 2Register Today!
- Sep 27, '12 by squatmunkie_RN
- Sep 27, '12 by netglowA human right is whatever we decide it should be (as time passes -- subject to change).
As humans we can make of the world what ever we want as evidenced by the many varied definitions on human rights, law, religion, etc.
- Sep 27, '12 by Asystole RNQuote from DizzyLizzyNurseAh, I see where you were going with this.
Well, how do you define a human right and how does it fit in with healthcare?
- Sep 27, '12 by tokebiI know the thread is about US Constitution but here's one that's above that:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
- (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
- (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Sure it's just words, and who knows how much weight it carries. But it is an ideal we can strive for. We can either choose to be cynical and give up, or be a little naive and work towards the ideal of building a healthy community. We can't have a strong country without healthy members!Last edit by tokebi on Sep 27, '12
- Sep 27, '12 by Asystole RNQuote from tokebiWell, I really was hoping that the thread would be generally about human rights and healthcare and not just the Constitution.I know the thread is about US Constitution but here's one that's above that:
Here's the full document:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Sure it's just words, and who knows how much weight it carries. But it is an ideal we can strive for. We can either choose to be cynical and give up, or be a little naive and work towards the ideal of building a healthy community. We can't have a strong country without healthy members!
That link was a great find, thank you.
I would disagree that a certain standard of living is a right. I think that there is a right to achieve that standard of living but not the standard itself.
- Sep 27, '12 by tokebiOf course, no one is entitled to a 60k annual income and x number of doctor visits a year and two-story house, etc etc. But I strongly believe there has to be a certain minimal standard that everyone is entitled to. I think people generally agree that people should be given equal opportunity -- not total equality but equal chance at achieving something. If you're born on the streets, surrounded by violence and drug use, are you given the chance to succeed? Yes, there are some very resilient people who can survive and succeed. For the most, however, sociologists have shown that people -- regardless of their intelligence -- are greatly influenced by their environment. The argument for "personal responsibility" in healthcare debates usually come from those who have not experienced living in a neighborhood with fast food joint every corner, supermarket with fresh produce miles away, and every friend, aunts, and uncles, are single mothers or children of single parents. It is imperative to improve the standard of living all around for the sake of next generation, which would benefit not only those who are direct recipient of social programs but everyone else, including you! When parts of the country are blighted, the negative impact spreads all around eventually...
- Sep 27, '12 by RNsRWeI wonder if the crux of the debate lies in whether one believes what one person calls a "right" is really more a "societal expectation". By living in what we consider an 'advanced' society (and let's not get started on THAT definition, lol) perhaps we've assigned such a high expectation of the ready accessibility of healthcare that we've essentially deemed it a right---when it really isn't.
Did that make sense to anyone but me just now?
- Sep 27, '12 by DoGoodThenGo“WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Just what part aren't you getting?
The US Constitution is not some document set in stone, but was designed and indeed has evolved over the years to adapt to changes in the country.
Under a strict and set interpetation of the USC women still would be chattle, African Americans and other minorities would still be *second class" citizens, etc... and so forth.
Our founding fathers were wise enough to understand they couldn't create a document that would cover every possible little thing that faced the young nation. They also knew that the grand *experiment* in governance the US was undertaking could fail, so they adopted a fluid consitution and put in place the "checks and balances" of having three branches of goverment to make decisions.
Remember as well that the federal government outside of powers alloted to it via the USC has no other powers, those remain with the states and they far more than the United States as a whole have the final say as to what those living within their borders will or will not have.
Bringing it on home to a subject much in the media today, *gay marriage*. Where in the USC do you see anything about the right to marry much less anyone of a different race or same sex? Yet because of the SCOTUS the fromer has been permitted for decades now and the latter seems to be going the same way.
"General Welfare" is a pretty broad and expansive term that has been applied to various things over the years, many of which our founding fathers never could have dreamed of: general welfare
It is the people of the United States that define what is or isn't in the general welfare of the nation and that includes certain rights. Again using the gays as an example ten or so years ago you never would have seen govenors openly pushing gay marriage, adoption and or various other civil rights for that group. However as things have changed on the ground so have some politicans. It was the same with civil rights for blacks.President Eisenhower saw which way the country was going and though it wouldn't get *there* for another decade or so (if it has ever in some parts of the USA), he took steps to start the ball rolling.