Ethical Arguments Regarding Medicare Sustainability and Public Health Funding for Unhealthy Practices

This report presents ethical arguments regarding Medicare Sustainability and Public Health Funding for Unhealthy Practices. It discusses whether people who intentionally follow unhealthy practices should get financed by Public health funds or not if they undergo chronic illness. The report highlights the ethical principles of autonomy, justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence and their application in the healthcare sector. It also discusses the human rights act and the importance of providing equal and fair treatment to each individual. The report concludes that every patient should achieve great assistance, quality of care, and equal fair treatments.

HEALTH CARE

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
Several people in Australia have been observed to indulge in practices that are harmful to
their health. Harmful practices such as smoking, usage of substances, contact with alcohol, and
others. Human beings have inherent equal worth, and also each person has the right to attain fair
treatment, self-fulfillment, self-determination, and similar rights. One of the issues highlighted in
the broader debate regarding Medicare Sustainability is whether people who intentionally follow
unhealthy practices should get financed by Public health funds or not if they undergo chronic
illness (Joergensen & Praestegaard, (2018).
Moreover, the arguments which are highly covered the area of whether an individual's
responsibility should interrupt the access to public health funding or not. It is being discussed
that if an individual intentionally puts their life at risk and engages themself in risky but
avoidable patterns and behaviors, so are they eligible for public health funds. In this report, a
range of ethical arguments will be conducted and presented to support the assertion of the
concept, which is highly based on four bioethical principles. Each aspect of these arguments will
be delineated (Paal and et al., 2019).
MAIN BODY
The intentionally risking health by adapting unhealthy practices in lifestyle that should be
able to attain the healthcare benefits and finance, as per the ethics of health care sectors. Choices
are interlinked with the notion of an individual's freedom. Individuals do not judge their choices.
Ethical perspective and code of ethics include that each individual should attain equal treatment
and quality of care, whatever the cause of illness and suffering (De Panfilis & Tanzi, (2019).
The policy of Medicare and its free access to public hospitals services provides support
and care to each individual, whether an individual disregards relevant bits of advice regarding
health risk and continues to harm their health by smoking, injuring themselves under the
influence of harmful substances and drugs, alcohol. Moreover, the Medicare policy is eligible for
each individual to offer quality assurance, support, and modify their attitude and behaviors
towards their lifestyle (El Daouk, Abu Musa & Abou-Mrad, (2020).
As per the ethical principles, health care practitioners should fulfill the quality of care and
needs to promote the well-being of an individual. Individuals should be treated similarly to other
patients. In the medical field, autonomy is demonstrated as an individual's choices, and

preferences should be respected with dignity. According to ethical determinants, each individual
has the right to live, including freedom in their choices (Nilsson & Sandoff, (2017). As per the
studies, health choices are determined by an individual's beliefs, desires, preferences, and
personal decisions, so unhealthy practices are also a part of it that should be valued (Code of
Ethics, 2021).
But on the other hand, sometimes it may also have associated with false beliefs, which
can promote an individual to induce risk factors in regards to their health. According to the
ethical principle of autonomy, an individual's decision-making is highly valued and respected
(De Panfilis & Tanzi, (2019). Autonomy features are considered a pivotal health care notion.
There can be ethical challenges prevailed to support autonomy. Due to unhealthy choices, an
individual can induce chronic illness such as lung cancer, where there are no chances of cure,
and these choices can interrupt an individual's survival rates. But as per the Medicare health
policy, each individual should attain fair treatment from hospitals; in that case, it can be
considered as decay of resources and time of health care professionals (Guevara, González &
Gascón, (2020).
The human rights act is a tremendous aspect based on people's rights, whereas, in this,
the people who are eligible for benefits of the Medicare scheme are taken while they
compromise their health. Moreover, article one states that all human beings are born free and
have equal dignity and right. However, they are endowed with the number of reason and
conscience which used to act towards one another, which is based on the spirit of brotherhood
and so on (De Panfilis & Tanzi, (2019). Therefore, they focus on the number of aspects
associated with the benefits and disadvantages of the Medicare scheme, which is strongly
recommended for those who need and require financial help for their health issue. Moreover,
some of the eligible people intentionally compromise their health to take the benefits associated
with the recovery of health. With this, the needy do not take the benefits that help improve the
quality of life and raise their standard regarding health (Codes, guidelines, and policies, 2021).
The ICN demonstrates that they should attain treatment and care as they are also patients
like other patients. Also, the code of ethics indicates that respecting each patient and treating
them somewhat are the main functions of health care professionals. Another ethical principle is
goodwill, which determines by formulating the best outcome for an individual, especially those
suffering from acute illness. Unhealthy practices may promote chronic disease; this awareness

has been given to each individual from childhood, still if an individual choose practices which
are not suitable for their well-being. But ethically, they are eligible to attain fair and equal
treatment from public health funds (Gürçayır & Karabulut, (2019).
The multiple ethical challenges which can be arises in support by health care
professionals. The unhealthy practice may lead an individual to the situation such as cancer,
organ failure, etc. In this situation, health care professionals can achieve the best outcome for an
individual that can promote recovery. There are fewer chances of healing of an individual in this
situation, and implementation of beneficence ethical principle may fail. As per the studies, it has
been observed that beneficence includes moral imperatives, it can provide vulnerable support to
individuals, but it is limited. But on the other hand, ethically, it should be applicable (Paying the
price for avoidable health risks, 2014).
As per the code of ethics of health, the evaluation of acute care plans for critical illness
for each individual is the duty of healthcare professionals. Another ethical principle is non-
maleficence. It included inflicting minimum and least harm to an individual who is possible,
providing a positive outcome. As per the theory of non-maleficence, it is the policy not to harm
an individual (De Panfilis & Tanzi, (2019).
The ethical challenges that can be faced to support non-maleficence as an individual are
self-harming themself by the constant use of unhealthy practices. This ethical principle can be
applied in critical cases where the patients suffer from acute illness. Additionally, another moral
principle is justice. Individuals should attain equal care and a supportive environment regarding
their needs and demands. As per the code of ICN, it has been concluded that each individual has
equal rights in attaining their quality of services and treatment (Gürçayır & Karabulut, (2019).
In this report, it has been discovered that the ethical principle has been found that
autonomy is a principle that is being compromised, and the moral code which should be
precedence is justice. The aim is to provide the best quality of care that an individual should
achieve the best outcome in an individual's well-being. The listed benefits could be gained
through implementing this ethical principle, in which recovery of an individual is a prime
benefit. As per the code of conduct, working in a partnership could give the best outcome; it also
includes essential factors such as honesty, encouraging, and supporting each patient (De Panfilis
& Tanzi, (2019).

According to the studies of ethical principles, ultrafine thinking is based on choices
within two variants. Still, an equal method of treatment should be implemented, which means an
individual's rate of benefits should be maximized, and the prevalence of risk and cost should be
minimized. According to the code of ethics, health practitioners have to monitor and provide the
best services to individuals in contact with chronic illness (Lowe & York, (2020). The best
outcome for assessing chronic pain from diseases can be derived as a person should allow doing
practices in a limited amount so that it cannot reflect adverse effects and work as drugs
(Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 2021).
The proposed action is helpful as it can help individuals ease their addiction, and also it
can promote quality of care which makes an individual unfollow these practices. The moral
character virtues of health care professionals can be considered ethically to provide assistance
and health assurance to promote recovery from acute illness. Individuals should be treated with a
benevolent attitude; it helps establish a positive environment and also may be helpful to attain
effective communication between inpatients and nurses. It helps in the evaluation of acute care
plans for an individual. As per the UNDHR natural law, it has been concluded that each
individual should be provided inherent equality and have inalienable rights. There should be no
discrimination, and health inequality should prevail while providing them services (Miles &
Asbridge, (2017).
CONCLUSION
As demonstrated in the ethical argument that an individual should attain equal and fair
treatment. An individual should also train health insurance from the Medicare policy and public
health funds. The code of principles demonstrates that every patient should achieve great
assistance, quality of care, and equal fair treatments.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
De Panfilis & Tanzi, (2019) “I go into crisis when…”: ethics of care and moral dilemmas in
palliative care. BMC palliative care, 18(1), 1-8.
El Daouk, Abu Musa & Abou-Mrad, (2020)). Ethics and social media networking in Lebanon: A
double-edged conception to healthcare professionals. Cogent Medicine, 7(1), 1784621.
Guevara, González & Gascón, (2020) Knowledge about healthcare-associated infections in
medical, bioanalysis and nursing students from a Venezuelan university. Revista de la
Facultad de Medicina, 68(1), 59-65.
Gürçayır & Karabulut, (2019). Evaluation of the self-directed learning readiness of different
healthcare profession students in Turkey.
Joergensen & Praestegaard, (2018). Patient participation as discursive practice—A critical
discourse analysis of Danish mental healthcare. Nursing Inquiry, 25(2), e12218.
Lowe & York, (2020). Risk Management Regarding Scope of Practice for Healthcare Providers
and Students Abroad. Undergraduate Scholarly Showcase, 2(1).
Miles & Asbridge, (2017). Person-Centered Healthcare-moving from rhetoric to methods,
through implementation to outcomes. European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare,
5(1), 1-9.
Nilsson & Sandoff, (2017). Experiences from implementing value-based healthcare at a Swedish
University Hospital–a longitudinal interview study. BMC Health Services Research,
17(1), 1-12.
Paal & Elsner, (2019). Postgraduate palliative care education for all healthcare providers in
Europe: results from an EAPC survey. Palliative & supportive care, 17(5), 495-506.
Robert & Reignier, (2020). Ethical dilemmas due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Annals of intensive
care, 10(1), 1-9.
Online Sources:
Code of Ethics, 2021 [Online] Available through: < https://www.aasw.asn.au/practitioner-
resources/code-of-ethics>
Codes, guidelines and policies, 2021 [Online] Available through <
https://www.paramedicineboard.gov.au/Professional-standards/Codes-guidelines-and
%20policies.aspx>
Paying the price for avoidable health risks, 2014 [Online] Available through <
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-18/barnes-taking-responsibility-for-our-health-
choices/5326254>
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 2021 [Online] Available through <
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights>