1. The purpose of one article is to persuade the general public that health care is a basic human right that should be guaranteed to everyone; however, the purpose of the other article is to persuade that socialized medicine is not a right because it is impractical and immoral.
2. These articles do have a bias. While Dr. Ronald Pies believes universal health care is a moral obligation endowed by the government, Dr. Leonard Peikoff believes that socialized medicine is a disaster in practice because it simply does not work.
3. In the journal article, “Universal Health Care: A Moral Obligation?” Dr. Pies starts off by affirming that health care is fundamentally a moral issue and that religion is intricately involved in the discussion, providing …show more content…
Bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development; the Catholic Church and some Protestant denominations; Rabbi Elliot Dorff, a Jewish scholar; and Dr. M. H. Al-Khayat, part of the Islamic religion. Although by closing up his thoughts by stating how he cannot prove that health care is a basic human right, the medical doctor firmly believes that no one should have to die of a disease that can be easily treated. In the other article, “Health Care Is Not A Right,” Dr. Peikoff begins by opposing socialized medicine by stating how it is a failure in practice because it is a “case of vicious in theory.” He then goes on to explain that the difference between the basic human rights (life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness) and the right to health care is that the former are rights to action, not “to rewards from other people.” This means that the latter is a right at
2. These articles do have a bias. While Dr. Ronald Pies believes universal health care is a moral obligation endowed by the government, Dr. Leonard Peikoff believes that socialized medicine is a disaster in practice because it simply does not work.
3. In the journal article, “Universal Health Care: A Moral Obligation?” Dr. Pies starts off by affirming that health care is fundamentally a moral issue and that religion is intricately involved in the discussion, providing …show more content…
Bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development; the Catholic Church and some Protestant denominations; Rabbi Elliot Dorff, a Jewish scholar; and Dr. M. H. Al-Khayat, part of the Islamic religion. Although by closing up his thoughts by stating how he cannot prove that health care is a basic human right, the medical doctor firmly believes that no one should have to die of a disease that can be easily treated. In the other article, “Health Care Is Not A Right,” Dr. Peikoff begins by opposing socialized medicine by stating how it is a failure in practice because it is a “case of vicious in theory.” He then goes on to explain that the difference between the basic human rights (life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness) and the right to health care is that the former are rights to action, not “to rewards from other people.” This means that the latter is a right at