Positive Versus Negative Rights

According Bradley (2010), “Positive rights, obligate you either to provide goods to others, or pay taxes
that are used for redistributive purposes.”, in my original discourse, I am referring to “a state” wherein
the positive right would mean “a state” should provide goods to “other”. I was thinking that since
taxation is already in place (I don’t know of a country that does not collect tax from people), therefore it
is logical that “people” should get a partial share of which that certain individual has shared. Did the
person pay taxes in 100% of his earnings? Of course not, only a portion of it. Therefore, even healthcare
is set as a right, this does not mean “a state” shall pay in full the healthcare expenses of “an individual”.
It is wrong to say that because it is your right to healthcare that you obliged the state to pay in full what
you shared in partial.

Saying that health care providers are forced to give services as set by the government is a different
avenue for argument. You argued the statement of a positive right in a personal level. You are right
when you said that a person does not do justice if the person is burdened to share in full the fruits of his
labor, and this way of thinking is a “Negative Right”. Now let me ask you a question: following your logic
and your example of the right to food, you would mean that since food is a fundamental human right of
the person, Nutritionist should be forced to do nutritional services like wise, the right to education, that
the teachers should be forced to render their services because education is a right. The meaning of a
“right” is in a different context.

It should be, since Healthcare is a right, this should not force healthcare providers to render services for
free. Now, to clarify this, in what statement given the right to healthcare that healthcare providers are
forced to give services? Health care providers are of a personal entity and has autonomy. That is why in
my original discourse to leave the self-determination to the people(Juškevičius & Balsienė, 2010), if not,
this will contradict with the persons autonomy.

Again, as I was arguing earlier in my original discourse, the definition of a “right” should be narrowed
before we could come up with a common ground.

In your 2nd point, I agree with most of your statement since these are outright realities that we observe.
The disparities are one of the challenges we face as problem solvers of our present period in time. I
might be too idealistic, but aiming for a goal, like rearing a child, we should go for the good reasons and
place an environment that will be conducive for right to healthcare flourish. Without that environment,
this would mean.

References

Bradley, A. (2010). Positive rights, negative rights and health care. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36(12),
838–841. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.036210
Juškevičius, J., & Balsienė, J. (2010). Human Rights in Healthcare: Some Remarks on the Limits of the
Right To Healthcare. Issn, 4(122), 1392–6195. Retrieved from
http://www.mruni.eu/lt/mokslo_darbai/jurisprudencija/%5Cnhttp://www.mruni.eu/en/mokslo_d
arbai/jurisprudencija/