Exactly, the removal of personal responsibility does much more harm than good, even if in practice you're handing people stuff to keep themselves alive

This is what is keeping people in safety nets, and what is keeping us out of anarchy and even decentralization. If we all carried our own responsibilities over ourselves, we would be able to make easier transitions, but most within the confines of these safety nets are to used to giving those responsibilities up for more convenience.

Oh yeah, they cannot fathom living bearing responsibility

Those who depend on safety nets would be the ones who would need the most "rehab"

That would be a lot of people in rehab o.o lol

Oh yeah

At least a generation's worth of rehab

lol right?

Tell people to go out, hunt their own food, make their own bows, and they will bitch and moan and call it unfair. But they will turn around and say food is a human right.

Guess what, if you are not willing to go get it yourself, then you are the only one to blame for not getting fed. No one owes you their labor because some hoe birthed you and nature demands you stay fed.

Isn't the way to discern true rights to ask what you still have when stripped of everything?

Assigning rights too foolhardily restricts freedoms, liberty ought to be the keystone that everything fits around.

Precisely! This is why advocating for any new rights (ie: these minority rights on the left that are constantly being shoved down our throats) is foolish.

I think there is an honest question surrounding healthcare, although this is kinda changing topic.

I wonder is it reasonable to assign a right to healthcare

is it a right in itself or is it an extension of your right to preservation of life.

If you apply the previous maxim, you cannot surely say when you are stripped bare of all privileges that you are owed a right to be treated medically, you are the arbiter of your own ends, and you should be responsible for your own medical care.

I would say it would be an extension of your right to preservation of life. Furthermore, I don't think any medical healthcare professional should be entirely obligated to do so. It is your responsibility, as you said for your own medical care.

Well it follows that you have a right to preserve your own life and that arise in rights of self defence etc. So I would have to argue that there exists no right to receive medical treatment.

Since the onus is on you to resolve that yourself.

The question interests me particularly since I live in the UK where we do have a right to medical treatment.

Oh right

the whole charlie grad incident

well that's actually a seperate issue

And I studied both that case and the recent Alfie Evans case

The court rule was far more reasonable than the media makes it out to be

In the US you have the right to emergency medical care. The way I see it, is a medical professional would probably hold the right to preserve your life if they so wished to do so, but it is their right to do so, not their obligation.

@Wally I don't think Doctors have a positive duty to act though do they?

Thats the end problem though. The government will hold the ability to provide or cut off medical care if you have a right to it.

No. They do what they do for profit in this society as far as I can see.

I think it works better when you are personally responsible for your own treatment

@Blackhawk342 It's not government, but the judiciary.

If I explain the reason why the court ruled the way it did it'll help you understand it a bit better

and the judicicary is a branch of the _____

judiciary is a seperate branch

We call it the separation of powers, you know what I mean right?

Yes but the judiciary branch acts according in interpretation to policy.

In this case the ability to get treatment for onesself is far too important to let some moron in fancy robes make decisions on behalf of the people whose lives are on the line

The reason the courts ruled the way there did was founded in the Best Interests test, it operates in that anyone with wardship jurisdiction over another, ought to act in the best interests for the ward.

In Alfie Evans case, their parents petitioned to have him flown to Germany or Italy, to receive treatment there. It was put to the court that doing this would cause a great distress and pain to Alfie. Since the treatments offered by the hospitals overseas were no different from the current treatment options available in the UK, the court ruled that it would not be in Alfie's best interest to be transported to Germany or Italy.

You can argue that a court shouldn't be able to make decisions on behalf of the parents, that's reasonable.

That would beg a question of how do we assign wardship at all, why do parents get to decide the fate over autonomous children or incapacitated individuals.