Scarcity of healthcare within the country does not happen due to limited resources but due to unethical management of these extant inadequate resources. Resources allotted to healthcare are dependent on a budget that is driven by the demand; hence, policy and decision-makers employ models to determine how resources are to be allocated to healthcare. Since it is a matter of setting priorities, different health metrics, for example, QALY and DALY, are used to determine the number of resources to be channeled to healthcare. However, such strategies tend to value the outcomes and not all the cases.
Allocation of resources should be equalized based on need because a metric such as QALY does not imply that the person is immortal. Apportioning resources to a person who has a higher QALY score does not mean that the individual cannot die of something else; yet, the person with a lower QALY may continue to survive (Harris, 2009). Resources have never been enough due to increasing demand; however, how they are managed determines the adequacy of overall health care.
Every life is important, and therefore, the principle that should govern resource distribution is equality. Equality is not assessed by one’s health status but on their right to life; hence, everyone deserves an equal amount of attention when it comes to saving lives. If such were the case, there would be no controversies revolving around health inequality based on, but not limited to, race, gender, and culture (Harris, 2009). It is not within the jurisdiction of man to determine who lives and who dies. On the contrary, resources should be allotted based on the need so that where the requirement is greatest, more resources are allotted while the converse is the case. Sequentially, no one is left unattended, and all parties are proportionately represented.
Reference
Harris, J. (2009). Deciding between patients. In H. Kuhse, & P. Singer (Eds.), A companion to bioethics (2nd ed.) (pp. 335-350). Wiley-Blackwell.