Catholic Physicians\u27 Guild

English

epublications@Marquette

The Linacre QuarterlyVolume 37 | Number 2 Article 4May 1970A Right to Health: A PrologueCatholic Physicians' GuildFollow this and additional works at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnqRecommended CitationCatholic Physicians' Guild (1970) "A Right to Health: A Prologue," The Linacre Quarterly: Vol. 37 : No. 2 , Article 4.Available at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnq/vol37/iss2/4~ A Right To Health - A Prologue For the last ten years or more in the social and polit~cal .life of. our AI society. the term, a right to health, has been used wtth ~creasmg free Inexorably and inevitably , the same term is bec?ming a familiar demand 11 on the part of the peoples of our western herrusphere but of. peopl~ thr< the world . We will save a consideration of the latter problem, vtz, the mte~. situation for a subsequent discussion. For the moment our concern wil interpret;tion and application to our North American health scene by the Catholic physician both of the term, a right to health, and the mental cc expresses. !rican ency t ool) gh~ tioni .>e tlw ,OIT131 .:epti What concept precisely is intende~ in. the secul~r sense by this term , a tghtlo health? Does Roman Catholic teachmg mclude this c~~cept? If so, how t •es thi teaching affect the Catholic physician both as a phys1ctan and as. a Catho ~a~[~ operis et fmis operantis). It would seem that a concept of a nght to on ani developing, or in fact, already has developed a social and moral con~ot:. > foci significance which is a corollary to that expressed by the term~ a r~~ t to tJ shelter, and clothing. There are those , and they are not necessarily b.mll• medical profession, who would deny _that a right _to h~alth and a ngh t .> f<Xi etc., had either a correlative or equtvalent relationship. At the hea.rt >f theJ distinction is the hypothesis that in fulfillment of the latter concep~. L<' ~ rif, to food, etc .• the provider is an anonymous "they", an~ that whic~ ~s PI ~tdeal~ an inanimate object, viz, food, cl.ot~g, et~·: whereas m the provtst~~ , !v~ till services the provider is an immedtate, tdenttftable and very personal I • physician. . . . I ms [IX Some draw another distinction , VIZ, tha! f~d , et~ .• are essentta e Thl' existence whereas health care is not essential 1n prectsely the same se ;e . . • again there are those who imply or forthrightly state that health se1 ce ~s"" ' 1 d · ·1· t·on and tl t nerh ... absolutely essential element, particular Y in a mo ern ~lVIIZa 1 ' . osed the individual physican nor the professio~ as a whole. IS totally free. t~ 1~P 5 a.~ this service as they, the providers, see f1t. Whether mdeed these disttn..tto~ 111 valid are among several of the points which we hope to have develo. ~d IJ1 relevant articles in this issue of the Linacre. Still other persons believe that the term, a right to health, or a rig! to f~ etc .. really in fers a right to the opportunity to health , food , etc., ~athr t h.ant~ absolute unqualified right in itself. Tht ' · if a right to health extst s I s.r.ed ~ gives rise to the problem of whether a right to health is of a qt Jli . .1 t unqualified nature. If the former, viz, •. qualified right, to what extc:nt ts 1~ qualified an d at the other end of this t bviously bipolar problem, wha t are 70 reciprocal rights of the individual physician who is the absolu tely essential health care provider? Further questions suggest themselves, to wit , in what light is this term, a right to health. in terpreted by persons in disciplines whose service or ends are only tangentially related to the medical field, e.g., by those in religion, sociology, philosophy , economics, government, (including public health) consti-tutional law, etc.? Finally, and most poignant to the purpose of this journal , what specifically does or should this term signify for the individual Catholic physician in the daily exercise of his profession? The task which this issue of the Linacre Quarterly ambitiously has set for itself is the exploration of these questions. In the essays which fo llow it is unlikely that Ill the problems and others as yet undefmed will be plumbed to their ultimate depth. It is therefore equally unlikely that we shall arrive at scientifically demonstrable and irrefutable conclusions: Nor is that either our intention or our hope. Rather, it is our desire that the essayists in bringing their attention, skills, Mel thinking to the problems and relationship outtined above will challenge our leader, and in particular the Catholic physician to a critical self investigation of his own thinking, to a dialogue with the essayists (vocal or silent) and with his medical colleagues and perhaps ultimately will cause him to advance a new penonal position on the material under consideration . Thence, and by way of an initial consideration of the problem and for the purpose of these essays, the term, a right to health, wiU be used arbitrarily to ildicate the right of the individual person to the essential available elements lleeessary for the maintenance of total and stable bodily health. This then would iadude health facilities (e.g., hospitals, clinics, offices), necessary therapeutic lools (e.g., drugs, appliances) and most importantly, the medical personnel, but llpecially the individual physician. It seems to me that it further may be assumed 1hat in the context of our American society and for purposes of this review that if the physician, who presumably is the absolutely essential element in provison of health care is made available, then the other elements enumerated above can be · llllde available more or less readily where and when necessary. Therefore, in a 110re restricted by practical sense, we are aiming ultimately at, (1) determining tbether the concept of a right to health is juridicaJiy and morally valid, and, (2) if ID, then what are the necessary relationships in terms of righ ts and responsibilities flbich juridically an d morally exist between on the one hand the person (or OOmmunity of persons) in need of health care (patients) and on the other hand the provider of health care, the individual Catholic physician. V.H.P. 19'70 71 

A Right to Health: A Prologue

The Linacre QuarterlyVolume 37 | Number 2 Article 16May 1970A Right to Health: A PrologueCatholic Physicians' GuildFollow this and additional works at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnqRecommended CitationCatholic Physicians' Guild (1970) "A Right to Health: A Prologue," The Linacre Quarterly: Vol. 37 : No. 2 , Article 16.Available at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnq/vol37/iss2/16~ A Right To Health - A Prologue For the last ten years or more in the social and polit~cal .life of. our AI society. the term, a right to health, has been used wtth ~creasmg free Inexorably and inevitably , the same term is bec?ming a familiar demand 11 on the part of the peoples of our western herrusphere but of. peopl~ thr< the world . We will save a consideration of the latter problem, vtz, the mte~. situation for a subsequent discussion. For the moment our concern wil interpret;tion and application to our North American health scene by the Catholic physician both of the term, a right to health, and the mental cc expresses. !rican ency t ool) gh~ tioni .>e tlw ,OIT131 .:epti What concept precisely is intende~ in. the secul~r sense by this term , a tghtlo health? Does Roman Catholic teachmg mclude this c~~cept? If so, how t •es thi teaching affect the Catholic physician both as a phys1ctan and as. a Catho ~a~[~ operis et fmis operantis). It would seem that a concept of a nght to on ani developing, or in fact, already has developed a social and moral con~ot:. > foci significance which is a corollary to that expressed by the term~ a r~~ t to tJ shelter, and clothing. There are those , and they are not necessarily b.mll• medical profession, who would deny _that a right _to h~alth and a ngh t .> f<Xi etc., had either a correlative or equtvalent relationship. At the hea.rt >f theJ distinction is the hypothesis that in fulfillment of the latter concep~. L<' ~ rif, to food, etc .• the provider is an anonymous "they", an~ that whic~ ~s PI ~tdeal~ an inanimate object, viz, food, cl.ot~g, et~·: whereas m the provtst~~ , !v~ till services the provider is an immedtate, tdenttftable and very personal I • physician. . . . I ms [IX Some draw another distinction , VIZ, tha! f~d , et~ .• are essentta e Thl' existence whereas health care is not essential 1n prectsely the same se ;e . . • again there are those who imply or forthrightly state that health se1 ce ~s"" ' 1 d · ·1· t·on and tl t nerh ... absolutely essential element, particular Y in a mo ern ~lVIIZa 1 ' . osed the individual physican nor the professio~ as a whole. IS totally free. t~ 1~P 5 a.~ this service as they, the providers, see f1t. Whether mdeed these disttn..tto~ 111 valid are among several of the points which we hope to have develo. ~d IJ1 relevant articles in this issue of the Linacre. Still other persons believe that the term, a right to health, or a rig! to f~ etc .. really in fers a right to the opportunity to health , food , etc., ~athr t h.ant~ absolute unqualified right in itself. Tht ' · if a right to health extst s I s.r.ed ~ gives rise to the problem of whether a right to health is of a qt Jli . .1 t unqualified nature. If the former, viz, •. qualified right, to what extc:nt ts 1~ qualified an d at the other end of this t bviously bipolar problem, wha t are 70 reciprocal rights of the individual physician who is the absolu tely essential health care provider? Further questions suggest themselves, to wit , in what light is this term, a right to health. in terpreted by persons in disciplines whose service or ends are only tangentially related to the medical field, e.g., by those in religion, sociology, philosophy , economics, government, (including public health) consti-tutional law, etc.? Finally, and most poignant to the purpose of this journal , what specifically does or should this term signify for the individual Catholic physician in the daily exercise of his profession? The task which this issue of the Linacre Quarterly ambitiously has set for itself is the exploration of these questions. In the essays which fo llow it is unlikely that Ill the problems and others as yet undefmed will be plumbed to their ultimate depth. It is therefore equally unlikely that we shall arrive at scientifically demonstrable and irrefutable conclusions: Nor is that either our intention or our hope. Rather, it is our desire that the essayists in bringing their attention, skills, Mel thinking to the problems and relationship outtined above will challenge our leader, and in particular the Catholic physician to a critical self investigation of his own thinking, to a dialogue with the essayists (vocal or silent) and with his medical colleagues and perhaps ultimately will cause him to advance a new penonal position on the material under consideration . Thence, and by way of an initial consideration of the problem and for the purpose of these essays, the term, a right to health, wiU be used arbitrarily to ildicate the right of the individual person to the essential available elements lleeessary for the maintenance of total and stable bodily health. This then would iadude health facilities (e.g., hospitals, clinics, offices), necessary therapeutic lools (e.g., drugs, appliances) and most importantly, the medical personnel, but llpecially the individual physician. It seems to me that it further may be assumed 1hat in the context of our American society and for purposes of this review that if the physician, who presumably is the absolutely essential element in provison of health care is made available, then the other elements enumerated above can be · llllde available more or less readily where and when necessary. Therefore, in a 110re restricted by practical sense, we are aiming ultimately at, (1) determining tbether the concept of a right to health is juridicaJiy and morally valid, and, (2) if ID, then what are the necessary relationships in terms of righ ts and responsibilities flbich juridically an d morally exist between on the one hand the person (or OOmmunity of persons) in need of health care (patients) and on the other hand the provider of health care, the individual Catholic physician. V.H.P. 19'70 71 

https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2873&amp;context=lnq

A Right to Health: A Prologue

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

epublications@Marquette

epublications@Marquette