Ethics, Justice, and the Province of American Medicine: A Discussion of the Politicalization of the Duty to Care for Pediatric Heart Transplant Patients Who Are in the Country Illegally

Abstract

In what follows, I offer philosophical analyses of the cases of Maria Bueso and Jesica Santillan for the purpose of investigating the providence of American medicine and morality in cases where law and justice are in conflict. First, I consider the Trump Administration’s decision to terminate the Deferred Medical Action Program. I argue that, while the Administration’s decision is legal, and will likely be upheld in court, it runs afoul of the moral standards of both Christian and Enlightenment ethics. Secondly, I investigate whether or not there are sound reasons for restricting the access of immigrants to organ transplants and other scarce medical resources. Ultimately, I determine that such restrictions are only justified in limited circumstances. More than this, I argue that all people have a human right to life and that U.S. politicians have recognized this human right in political and legal documents like the Declaration of Independence, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act. For these reasons, I conclude that, while politicians may pass laws and issue edicts that restrict immigrants’ access to healthcare, it is almost always unjust for them to do so.