Why health care is not a right

Ethically, a right is something that can be guaranteed without requiring another person to provide ongoing labor or expertise against their will. This distinction is crucial. Classical rights — such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or the right not to be assaulted — are negative rights. They require others to refrain from interference. They do not compel someone else to act, work, or surrender the product of their skill.

Health care is fundamentally different from a right. Health care is not a thing that exists independently; it is a service provided by highly trained individuals using scarce resources, time, and judgment. Declaring health care a “right” necessarily implies that someone else — doctors, nurses, technicians, researchers — has a moral obligation to provide their labor, regardless of cost, availability, or consent. This transforms a supposed right into a claim on another person’s life and labor, which contradicts the moral basis of rights themselves, and would be a form of slavery. Even if the doctors are paid through taxes, the claim on life and labor just shifts to the taxpayer.

Moreover, rights must be universally deliverable. No society can guarantee health, recovery, or effective treatment in all circumstances. Illness, scarcity, and biological limits remain. A “right” that cannot be fulfilled for everyone at all times is not a right but an aspiration.

This does not mean health care is unimportant or that societies should not strive to provide broad access. Compassion and prudence may strongly support public provision or assistance, but ethically, that support rests on collective moral commitments and policy choices, not on the language of rights.

Calling health care a right confuses moral aspiration with entitlement — and in doing so, risks undermining both.

Mark Bodett

Wheaton