Alcohol consumers, smokers also worthy of human dignity, free health care

Owen Nsala | Wednesday May 3, 2017 16:50

There are other incidents too that would request that the patient foot their medical bills and amongst those would be a child involved in an accident when he or she had no seat belt on or an accident arising from a motor cycle where the driver had no helmet and safety wear. I suppose Government treats all these conditions as self-induced. Angry as Government comes across; does the savingram or directive has legal force and effect? In my considered view, the savingram or directive  has no force at law at all. In my considered view, the savingram or directive detracts from the Constitution to the extent that the Constitution entrenches the right to equality, human dignity, equal protection of the law  and liberty. The savingram, by implication imposes on the citizenry to live their lives in a particular way or risk the wrath of Government in denial of free medical treatment. It seeks to regulate how adults must live their lives or endure the consequences of their immorality in the eyes of Government.

The Constitution as the supreme law is immensely relevant when interrogating issues of healthcare and the provision thereof by Government to the extent that it guarantees that every person is entitled to equality before the law, equal protection of the law and human dignity and also to the extent to which it prohibits unfair discrimination. The Bill of Rights regulates the relationship between the individual and the state. It confers rights on individuals and imposes duties on the State. This has always been premised on the realisation that the State is far more powerful than individuals and individuals are generally considered vulnerable and worthy of protection from the State, which may violate their rights. Government must therefore refrain from any discriminatory practices towards drunkards and smokers and must view patients in the same way as it treat patients for other illnesses. This directive has no force at law at all and neither Cabinet nor the permanent secretary to the Ministry of Health may rule by decree. In any event, does the policy have retrospective effect for smokers? What of those that smoked before the policy was conceived and quit? 

I submit that Government should not have health policies which invoke discriminatory practices towards smokers and those who partake in alcohol. Government must view patients of alcohol and smoking-related incidents in similar light as all other patients suffering from different illnesses. Patients must be treated equally. It must be mentioned that the principle of equality does not outlaw treating people differently to others per se.

The principle of equality does not require everyone to be treated the same, but simply that people in the same position should be treated the same. Simply put, discrimination that is irrational and or unjustifiable cannot pass  the constitutional test. Shunning patients of alcohol or smoking- related illnesses without a doubt infringes upon the dignity of those concerned. The value of dignity as a core value of our Constitution cannot be overemphasised. Recognising the right to dignity is an acknowledgement of the intrinsic worth of a human being. It is therefore plainly impermissible to deny medical treatment to someone because of alcohol or smoking. It is offensive to modern thinking and must not be tolerated.

Smokers and those who drink alcohol are similarly worthy of a dignified being. Human dignity must mean having a sense of self-respect and self-worth. It is concerned with the physical and psychological integrity of humanity. Human dignity is harmed by unfair treatment or discrimination based on personal traits. The right to dignity permeates the entire Bill of Rights in our Constitution. It is an intrinsic part of the right to life, broadly construed, for the denial of the right to dignity would denude the right to life of its effective content and meaningfulness. Section 7(1) of the Constitution in so far as it prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment, is protective of the right to dignity.

Quoting in full, Section 7(1) of the Constitution says: ‘7. (1) No person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment.’ In liberal moral philosophy, human dignity is considered to be what gives a person their intrinsic worth as human beings. Consequently, every human being must be treated worthy of respect. It is the right to dignity that lays the foundation for the right to equality and all other rights that humans possess. In my mind, the right to dignity requires us to respect that an individual is the master of his or her own body and or destiny and that he or she is free to resist any potential violation to his or her right to liberty  or bodily integrity.