|

What’s Wrong with Health Equity?

Share this article

How seeking ‘equal health for all’ can lead us to tyranny

The call for health equity has become a rallying cry for public health – health for all and the ability for all people to reach their full health potential.

In order to achieve this, public health aims to eliminate health disparities – essentially, differences in health outcomes – for disadvantaged people in the population. For example, particular racial or ethnic groups may have higher rates of specific diseases or conditions, shorter life expectancies, or higher mortality rates compared to other groups.

Some groups in the populace may face barriers to accessing the healthcare services they need. For example, they may need more money to pay for medical services, or they may lack health insurance. They may lack transportation that allows them to drive to the doctor. Or they may face racism and discrimination when accessing services.

Public health claims that the origins of health disparities are systemic, having deep roots in social, economic, and environmental factors. Some of these factors include income, education, employment, housing, access to healthy food, exposure to environmental hazards, and social supports.

At first glance, health equity would seem like something that everyone can get behind. But there is a grave concern that arises from the vision of health equity:  the justification for public health to expand its power into different facets of society and ultimately expand its control over our lives.

The significant problem with health equity is that there are no checks and balances on the public health mechanism, and public health institutions can and have argued that their increasing control over individuals’ lives is justified by the greater mission they serve.

From this “greater good” rhetoric, government interventions may include medical mandates and restrictions on our lives that interfere with civil liberties. There is the concern that surveillance, coercion, and the loss of privacy are the trade-offs as the government attempts to control our behaviors in the name of health equity.

Moreover, achieving equity may involve a redistribution of societal resources, where the well-off subsidize the healthcare of people with lower incomes. Healthcare resources may be rationed by a central authority, leading to loss of personal choice among healthcare options.

The solution is straightforward:  public health institutions need to have appropriate checks and balances that limit their power, and no matter what public health does in the name of health equity, we must preserve our fundamental human rights.

Similar Posts

  • Central Banks Want CBDCs | Prof Richard Werner | BIG PICTURE

    Share this article

    As part of the upcoming film CBDC: The End of Money, I interviewed renowned economist and professor Richard Werner.

    Professor Werner is the father of the monetary policy concept of quantitative easing, the author of the best-selling book Princes of the Yen: Japan’s Central Bankers and the Transformation of the Economy, and the writer of an important paper on the actual operations of banks.

  • Vaccine Safety Heads to Congress

    Share this article

    Coronavirus Subcommittee studies adverse reaction reporting systems.
    The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic convened a hearing on Feb. 15 titled “Assessing America’s Vaccine Safety Systems, Part 1.”

  • Are Elections Honest?

    Share this article

    Probably most would agree that the two-party system keeps important topics like peace and single-payer healthcare out of the public discourse and ensures that candidates outside the mainstream will never have fair access to the election process. We know that PACs and corporate campaign finance (Citizens United) have an outsized effect on who gets…

  • The United Nations has proposed creating an ‘Emergency Platform’ to allow it to rule during major ‘global shocks’

    Share this article

    “When the world faces a complex global shock, we must ensure that all parts of the multilateral system are accountable for contributing to a collective response. No single agency exists to gather stakeholders in the event of complex global shocks. The United Nations is the only organization that can fulfil this role.”