Distributive Justice Case Study Nursing

In this case study, the doctor is discussing options of treatment with the patient for the patient’s angina. Two options are offered by Dr. Kenton. The first is the option of doing coronary artery bypass surgery that provides an 80% chance of getting rid of the patient’s angina (Munson, 2012, p. 726). The second option is managing the patient’s angina strictly by medical treatment, such as medications and diet. The patient’s main concern was their angina and making the pain go away. The doctor tells the patient that medical treatment is not as effective on angina pains as surgery. After the doctor went over all the option, the patient decides that he would rather have the surgery. The doctor responds by asking the patient if he has any other …show more content…
We as people expect to be treated justly and with fairness. There are many principles that are found within the principle of distributive justice. One of those principles, it the principle of equality. In this case all benefits of healthcare are to be distributed equally among individuals. It can be argued that distributing healthcare equally among individuals will benefit everyone, but in the case above, does the basic healthcare policy benefit the patient? In addition, there is the principle of need. This principle is part of the principle of equality. For individuals that have less, this principle states that they should receive more than the individual or individuals that have more than them. This policy can be argued in this case. This individual cannot pay for the surgery and has the basic health care policy. Based on the principle of need, this individual should receive more than the individuals that have more than them. The principle of distributive justice helps us to analyze the right to health care and the right to equal opportunity. Based on this principle, all individuals should receive healthcare and they should receive healthcare based on their needs. If a person has less they should get more and vice …show more content…
Rawl’s focuses on justice or fairness for everyone. One of the principles that Rawl’s points out is that inequalities socially and economically are supposed to be arranged that they benefit the least advantaged the most (Munson, 2012, p. 882). When providing basic healthcare policies to everyone this is not happening. Everyone is receiving the same benefits, so the least advantaged can get basic care, but they are unable to get more than that. In contrast, people who are more advantaged have the basic care as well, but are able to afford some of the procedures that the least advantaged cannot. In the case above, the patient is a member of the least advantaged. He can get the basic care he needs, but is unable to get the additional care, the surgery. In addition, Rawl’s other principle talks about everyone’s liberties. Every individual should have the same liberties as everyone else within the system of liberties. Basically, everyone has the right other liberty to do as they wish as long as their liberty does not impede on anyone else’s liberties. In this case the patient has the liberty to choose which treatment he wants, but his liberties are impeded upon by the basic insurance policy. The basic insurance policy allows the patient to get the basic care, but the care the patient wants to choose is considered by the healthcare policy to be an optional procedure. Since the healthcare policy does not