The Catch 22 argument

I’d like to focus my opinion toward the broader applicability of this isolated event as it pertains to our course discussions; in particular, applying it to the concept/debate of health care allocation to the vulnerable. In doing so, we come to the simple debate: should science trump social values in resource allocation?

In assessing the distributive analysis of equitable resource allocation, there is an underlying application of risk analysis. In determining the feasibility and justifications of distributing resources to population groups, policy makers are prone to factoring in the nature, duration, severity, and probability of risks and harms (I’m discussing it in the context of medicine/health, and not upstream [non-health-related]determinants for the time being). But in order to respond to the crisis in the need for resources to the vulnerable groups, shouldn’t there be a social value factor equated into their calculations of distribution?

The public has a different contextual understanding of risks since they have a perspective which mirrors social norms, values, as well as personal/cultural beliefs. So society may interpret what are risks and the extent of its severity based off of these factors. And at the very foundation of their interpretation of health, is their understanding that it is a human right and a right deserving for everyone. As a result, policy makers should try to weigh potential for health disparities against the potential harms to traditional values.

However, the “Catch-22” is society does tolerate hazardous risks (i.e., smoking) because they believe they are aware of the harms associated, and that they are in control of their voluntary choices to uptake the behavior. That is why society doesn’t want extensive regulations on hazards that they believe are voluntarily incurred (smoking), rather, place them on those risk factors that are non-volitional.

And this is where the challenge stems from: providing a society that is eager and demanding toward unconditional rights to health access, affordability, and equity across all spectrums of care and resources in an environment of constrained resources. Yet, they are still adamant toward their ‘individualistic paternalism’ in the face of population initiatives geared toward improving the collective burdens of self-regulating diseases/illnesses. And furthermore, this is applicable when considering the efforts of policy makers in response to the challenges of upstream/non-health related determinants of population health.

What we have to understand is there will always be trade-offs; whether by values, health, SES contributors, etc.

Can we compromise? Will we?