Is Health Care a Right or a Privilege? A Christian Ethical Perspective

One of the basic sources of conflict in our society regarding the direction that health care reform should take stems from a deep division among our populace as to whether health care is a basic human or civil right. If health care is a right, then government has an obligation to provide it, regardless of the individual's ability to pay for it. If it is a civil right, then this coverage must be extended to all lawful citizens. If it is a human right, then it must also be extended to criminals, non-resident aliens and illegal immigrants.

If, however, we do not have a right to health care, then there is no obligation for the government to provide health services to individuals within our society. There is no obligation to stem infant mortality, or control the spread of communicable diseases, or develop better treatments for cancer. That is not to say that these are not worthwhile goals; merely, that it is not the government's responsibility to provide these benefits. It is up to the market to provide these services if they are profitable, and to charities to provide them otherwise.

It seems that some of the most verbal opponents of government-supported health services are committed, believing Christians. I find this counter-intuitive. I cannot mount a competent secular ethical argument for a human or civil right to health care. But I can make a case from a Christian ethical perspective. And I invite commentary from readers of other religious traditions regarding the ethical imperatives arising from their traditions with respect to health care.

Christianity as a religion grew from Judaic roots, and is founded upon the belief that an historical human being who lived in Palestine around 2,000 years ago, Jesus of Nazareth, was in fact the incarnation (the "fleshing out") of God. Consequently, the words and actions of Jesus are perhaps the most authoritative reference for Christian life and practice. Jesus was crystal clear about the individual's responsibility for the welfare of his/her neighbor. In Luke 4 he quotes from the Hebrew prophet Isaiah to define his mission:

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,

because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind (emphasis added),
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

In chapter 11 of the same book, Jesus tells the story of the Good Samaritan, the man who spent his own money to bind the wounds of an injured man (providing emergency services) and put him up at an inn for his recuperation (hospitalization). Defining this as "neighborly" behavior, Jesus commanded, "Go and do likewise."

There are many, many more examples, but I'll give just one more: In Matthew 25, Jesus describes the final judgement of the nations (Greek ethnos, which means cultures or peoples, the concept of nation state having not yet developed). Those who are judged righteous and rewarded with eternal life are those who carried out specific behaviors, and those who were judged evil and condemned for eternity failed to perform these same behaviors:

"I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me (emphasis added), I was in prison and you came to visit me."

Jesus goes on to say that whenever we treat the least of our neighbors (i.e. the marginalized of society) in this way, it is as if we are literally caring for him.

At this point, the Christian who is inclined to disagree with me will quote Jesus (John 18) telling Pilate, "My Kingdom is not of this world," and follow this with quotes from Paul (Romans 13: submit yourself to the governing authority) and I Peter (submit yourselves to the king), to make the case that how we live our faith is a separate issue from how the government orders our society. I counter with the consistent message of the Hebrew prophets, and offer this one example from Isaiah 10:

Woe to those who make unjust laws,

to those who issue oppressive decrees,

to deprive the poor of their rights

and withhold justice

from the oppressed of my people,

making widows their prey

and robbing the fatherless.

What will you do on the day of reckoning,

when disaster comes from afar?

To whom will you run for help?

Where will you leave your riches?

When the New Testament was written, the Roman Empire was not a Christian state. In fact, Christians were persecuted and killed by Rome. On top of that, Christians were convinced that the end of the world was near, and therefore they were not concerned with temporal matters like social justice, nor were they in a position to influence these matters.

Israel, on the other hand, was a theocracy of sorts. The King and the Temple cult were inextricably tied. Temple worship was the "state religion." It was in this context that Isaiah prophesied against the religious and political leadership of Jerusalem. This context is more congruent with current American society, which is still not yet post-Christian. Christians who believe the American myth of a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles (and I'm using myth in the technical sense here, NOT as a synonym for fable) are violating their own integrity when they adopt the economic conservative stance that we have no societal or political obligation to provide at least a basic level of health care for our nation's citizens.

I therefore call on Christians to put their money where their mouth is. If we believe the United Sates is a Christian (or Judeo-Christian) nation, then we need to be intellectually and ethically consistent and support a more socialized model of medical care. OR, we need to be honest about what we really believe about the authority of Scripture (or, in this case, the lack thereof).