Rand Paul’s unpersuasive argument for a doctor’s political freedom

When addressing medical students at the University of Louisville recently, Sen. Rand Paul, who is an ophthalmologist by training, was asked whether health care is a right. This is what he had to say, according to a report of the event:

“There’s a philosophic debate which often gets me in trouble, you know, on whether health care’s a right or not,” Paul, in a red tie, white button-down shirt, and khakis, tells the students from the stage. “I think we as physicians have an obligation. As Christians, we have an obligation. . . . I really believe that, and it’s a deep-held belief,” he says of helping others. “But I don’t think you have a right to my labor,” he continues. “You don’t have a right to anyone else’s labor. Food’s pretty important, do you have a right to the labor of the farmer?” Paul then asks, rhetorically, if students have a right to food and water. “As humans, yeah, we do have an obligation to give people water, to give people food, to give people health care,” Paul muses. “But it’s not a right because once you conscript people and say, ‘Oh, it’s a right,’ then really you’re in charge, it’s servitude, you’re in charge of me and I’m supposed to do whatever you tell me to do. . . . It really shouldn’t be seen that way.”

Paul is correct that health care should not be considered a political right and that doing so amounts to enslaving the producers of that care. But if he has even a morsel of desire to actually convince people of this, he should reexamine his logic—it is impossible to defend a doctor’s freedom politically while slaying it morally. Said Ayn Rand on a radio program in 1962:

Before one gets to the question “What can a man do with his property?,” one must answer, “What are a man’s rights? Should he live for himself or for others?” If under capitalism the state does not interfere with a man’s disposal of his property, it is precisely because capitalism is based on the principle that man’s life and the products of his work belong to him—that man exists for his own sake. If you don’t start with the morality of rational self-interest, there’s no justification for the state leaving a man’s property alone. If a man doesn’t have the right to exist for his own sake, others may make claims on him; and under altruism, they do. According to altruism, we should live for others, and should base society on this principle.

Paul’s belief that we have “an obligation…to give people health care” amounts to the view that doctors are obligated to treat anyone who needs health care. But it’s because doctors are seen as having this duty that health care has come to be seen as a legal right—if it is morally repugnant for doctors to deny health care to anyone in need, there’s no good reason why the government shouldn’t require them to provide that care. Making a successful case for a doctor’s political freedom requires defending his moral right to set the terms and conditions on which he’ll make his work available to others. In her 1963 article, “How Not to Fight against Socialized Medicine,” Ayn Rand discussed how we should properly view doctors:

Doctors are traders, like everyone else in a free society—and they should bear that title proudly, considering the crucial importance of the services they offer. The pursuit of his own productive career is—and, morally, should be—the primary goal of a doctor’s work, as it is the primary goal of any self-respecting, productive man. But there is no clash of interests among rational men in a free society, and there is no clash of interests between doctors and patients. In pursuing his own career, a doctor does have to do his best for the welfare of his patients. This relationship, however, cannot be reversed: one cannot sacrifice the doctor’s interests, desires and freedom to whatever the patients (or their politicians) might deem to be their own “welfare.”

Paul and anyone else interested in defending doctors should take heed of Rand’s explanation of the facts and evaluations that support the case for a doctor’s political freedom. Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore via Compfight cc

The post Rand Paul’s unpersuasive argument for a doctor’s political freedom appeared first on VOICES for REASON.