Recent orders
Does Globalisation imply the end of a Nation-State
Does Globalisation imply the end of a Nation-State?
Name
Institution
Course
Date
In the recent decades, governments have been facing a new challenge of globalisation. The world’s politics as well as the new world order is facing threats from the sovereignty of the nation states. In reference with the growing world democracy and interdependence between nation states, governments are growing weaker, and they are losing popularity as time proceeds. However, the most salient issues are the consequence of these interconnectedness and democracy in relation with the autonomy and sovereignty of the state. From a critical evaluation, we all wonder whether globalisation surely mean the end of sovereignty. For us to answer this question, it is pertinent to understand the meaning of state sovereignty and globalisation. This will enhance measuring the effects of globalisation on state sovereignty. Following the argument by different philosophers concerning the scope of the two terms: globalisation and sovereignty, the discussion will strictly limit itself to the philosophical, political, economic and criminological aspect (Brocker, 2010).
The thesis of this writing revolves around implications of globalisation on the state in connection with the ongoing debates on the “decline of state” in relation with the “strength of the state”. In reference with the globalisation sceptics, there is the denial that the reality of globalisation is enquiring the degree of change attributed by globalisation. This is against the argument by globalisation believers who assert that it is difficult to resist globalisation. The argument will limit itself to the implications, which show that globalisation undermine the strength of the state (Paul & Ripsman, 2010).
State’s decline due to globalisation
The concept that every nation should be confined to its jurisdictions is among the most threatened aspects, yet this stood as one of the most critical and brightest prospects of a nation. Globalisation is slowly corroding most administrative functions of many nations out there. Even though, I can argue out that there are conflicting definitions of states administration, all can conform to me that administrative machinery differs substantially from a communitarian nation in all considerable aspects. In the present world, most nations stand as a collective social identity rather based on common historic and cultural heritage other than an administrative contrivance. I can assume that globalisation has ingrained neoliberal theories into varying societies and nations (Reid, Gill, & Sears, 2010). This has in turn convicted classical liberalism assuming that market forces will bring peace and democracy to the whole human kind, hence pertinent that all controls implemented by the state be done away (Held, 2009). These controls include things such as prices, wages and rates in foreign exchange. Such progress has led to challenging time in the autonomy and sovereignty of the state. Based on the above facts, I can observe that globalisation is gradually depleting political power from the nation-states which is the most influential figure in political organizations of world politics (Ohmae, 2009).
Since time in memorial, leaders of states have been relying on other nations to support them in implementing policies and official laws. Since it is the prime aspect of political power of and the administrative state in this heated debate entailing globalisation and its effect concerning the loose of the state’s power and or sovereignty to its citizens, it is overly crucial that a person critically examine the role of globalisation on this issue (Green, 1999). To many, they quite do not understand the real involvement of globalisation in this issue while for others, it is the fear far more reaching erosion of the country’s state. In this light, there are many aspects that one ought to take into account because globalisation covers a broad range of aspects of the international political economy (Bosrock, 2012). In the world economy, globalisation has significantly contributed more so in making the world a single unit by making it borderless (Mcgrew & Lewis, 1999). However, we should all know that it is because of economy that many nations seek to interact, and in the process ideas get exchanged leading to the implementation of such laws and policies that are international in nature. For one to get a clear aspect of the situation in order to come up to a desirable decision, it is crucial that he or she acknowledges that following five theses: sceptical thesis, hyperactive globalist thesis, complex globalisation thesis, ideational globalisation thesis and finally the new institutional thesis (Brocker, 2010).
A debate on globalisation in relation to politics
Globalisation combines a myriad of aspects ranging from social, economic and political. According to Scholte, globalisation encompasses distinctive features that are crucial to the world history. Since political globalisation and economic globalisation go hand in hand, it would be prudent of me to recognize this as the prime reason to why politics gets majorly affected by globalisation. According to Giddens, globalisation has the foundation of four vital elements; intensification, extensity, deepening impact and velocity. With the technology in the present world, the circulation of goods and services flows rapidly ( HYPERLINK “http://economics.about.com/cs/guestbios/a/bala.htm” Balakrishnan, 2012).
This has resulted to intensified interdependence on goods and services among nations. Because of this, there arise international laws that govern the way business is done, therefore, depriving many nations the ability to manage the businesses in their countries (Mcgrew & Lewis, 1991). There are involved laws such as international environmental conformance, social ethical responsibility laws among others. We can all agree based on the experiences we come by every time one intends to invest that the number of international laws that one ought has to adhere to have more weight than the local government requirements (Gill and David, 2008).
This is a clear indication of how the political power of a nation has been eroded overtime. All the decision making in most countries have to be based on the economical ability of the country in relation to resources and technology in their position. If the country lacks this, then it will ultimately bow to any incoming business investors since it has become a basic need to state. This shows utmost dependence of most nations since most of the states intend to improve their economic conditions; they are enslaved to international investor and international laws. This deprives the state its political power since it has to do almost anything in order to register its status quo in the world (Bosrock, 2012).
Another crucial aspect based on Hay and Marsh is the idea of demystifying globalisation. They insist that it is pertinent to view globalisation on the idea side other that looking at the materialistic aspect of it. Ideas shape the current world, even globalisation has been enhanced by ideas (Bhagwati, 2005). A good example is the United States that has to adopt the idea of welcoming foreign investors so that they could maximize the income earnings out of them. However, they had no interest in UNCTAD since they never saw any importance in it. We should learn to conceptualize ideas better so that the state can get better earnings based on the best idea they possessed (Burke, 2012).
Understanding the nation-state
The state is probably the most fundamental aspect of any political power. The World’s history shows how different countries have been fighting to protect the integrity of their territorial boundaries as well as establishing their own systems that are free from outside influence. However, political borders began having less significance after the Second World War and the cold war. The two wars gave way to the end of the Soviet Union, which led to massive globalisation. Countries started depending on others through economic and cultural interaction. The understanding of the term state and the underlying factors is perhaps what changes because of globalisation (Ritzer, 2010).
A nation-state is a country that is defined by clear political boundaries and which has a government that exercises its powers over the citizens and outsiders, in an attempt to protect its territory. The majority of population in the area must be citizens for a country to qualify to be a nation-state (Brocker, 2010). The term sovereignty has a connection with nation-state. It refers to the ability of a country to control all the activities that take place within and outside the borders. It also refers to the ability of a country to make independent decisions regarding its citizens, operations and activities (Shefner & Fernández-Kelly, 2010).
Globalisation and the nation-state
It is impossible to talk about globalisation without mentioning the nation-state. Globalisation affects the understanding of a nation-state. Globalisation establishes a culture that is a blend of many independent cultures. All members of the society including the marginalized groups benefit from globalisation. This shows that globalisation helps in solving some problems that are associated with nation-states (Guéhenno, 2005). Globalisation leads to the creation of international economies that allow free movement of people and resources across geographical borders. However, individual countries are solely responsible for maintenance of integrity and respect of law within their boundaries. The effects of globalisation in individual countries come in the form of restructuring the systems of government and its authority (Giddens, 2011).
Globalisation gives states the pressure of following its demands and coping up with other nations in the world. Thus, globalisation does not necessarily undermine the states, but rather compliment their existence. Nevertheless, it is common for most states to believe that globalisation is a way of bringing to an end the existence of sovereign nations. This is the reason that makes policy makers conclude that the impacts of globalisation depend on the state involved.
Globalisation and the end of nation-state
The essay will take the option of disagreeing with the statement that globalisation implies an end to nation-states. However, the essay will refer to both sides in an attempt to bring out a clear understanding of the underlying issues of globalisation (Christiansen, 2005). From an analyst point of view, globalisation has affected the political scene in the world. Globalisation capitalizes on economics to influence how different countries relate with one another (Lenhard, 2010). A keen observation of the impacts of globalisation reveals that countries tend to prioritize their issues and interests rather than adapting to the demands of globalisation. Nation-states facilitate the existence of globalisation and hence its existence cannot undermine activities and existence of the states (Cohen and Kennedy, 2002). For instance, companies are opening international branches in their efforts to increase profitability and market control. The subsidiary companies will send their profits to their home countries thus benefiting rather than undermining them. A company that has branches in many countries establishes interdependence between the countries. The interdependence increases the diplomatic relations between countries, which leads to a state of peace in the world (Dicken, 2005).
The idea of globalisation does not involve companies only. It also involves countries, which also enhances the discussion that globalisation does not lead to an end in nation-states. Many countries that uphold globalisation unite with others that have a close relationship. Countries unite based on their locations as well as the issues and activities that they share in common. For example, the African Union is a group of all African countries while the European Union comprises of all countries in Europe (Holton, 2008). This implies that the countries will have numerous similarities in their activities and culture. Therefore, globalisation leads to strengthening of the culture of nations rather than undermining the actions of the countries (Hall and D. Soskice, 2001).
The idea of political relationship between countries has changed especially after globalisation became an indispensable aspect of the world’s economy. Countries have now grouped themselves and minimized the barriers and differences between them (Holton, 2008). The groupings are mainly on an economic basis where countries share their political authority and economic activities. Some individuals regard these groupings as agents of disintegration of country values. However, the groupings do not challenge the existence of countries as independent states free from external influence. The European Union is a sufficient example to show how can benefit from globalisation while still holding their individual sovereignty. Member countries of the European Union depend on each other for their economic activities. Their interdependence is so deep that the countries use the same currency (the Euro) in their transactions. Creating a competitive business environment is the ultimate concern of the European Union. The political system of the member countries remains intact despite their relationships (Hirst, and Thompson, 2009).
There are fears that groupings such as the European Union eliminate nation-states and lead to national corporations. This is a flawed argument because the members of such groupings draft their constitution as well as the regulations. Membership is also voluntary and depends on the individual opinions of member countries. Globalisation contributes to the wellbeing of states and their citizens. The main role of a state is to provide social amenities to its subjects as well as protect their territorial boundaries and integrity. Globalisation will help countries in advancing their state of technology, as well as the overall infrastructure. This will help states in applying technology in maintaining security as well as providing social services to the citizens (Held, McGrew and Perraton, 1999).
Conclusion
Globalisation is a trend that is influencing the relationship and actions of different countries in the world. The countries cannot avoid globalisation because of its economic significance. It enhances competition among businesses and leads to exchange of resources and ideas between different countries (Berberoglu, 2003). Globalisation has affected the understanding of nation-states and the approach of many countries towards sovereignty. Many countries believed that sovereignty is the act or the ability of a country to exist independently from other nations. However, globalisation has replaced such thoughts and brought about the interdependence of different nations. Different scholars and opinion makers have used the changes that globalisation brings to the world to argue that globalisation will eventually lead to termination of nation-states.
Globalisation contributes to the strength and existence of countries in as much as it affects their political and economic systems. The contributions of globalisation in improving the welfare of countries suggest that its role is strengthening rather than leading to disintegration of nation-states. The European Union serves as the best example of the effects of globalisation on countries (Christiansen, 2005). Members of the European Union share interact with each other through trade and other relationships, but they all value their national interests. Their interaction has strengthened the relationship between the countries rather than disintegrating their political structure. The arguments above lead to the conclusion that globalisation does not lead to an end of nation-state.
References
Balakrishnan, C., (2012). “Impact of Globalisation on Developing Countries and India”, http://economics.about.com/od/globalisationtrade/l/aaglobalisation.htm
Berberoglu, B. (2003). Globalization of capital and the nation-state: Imperialism, class struggle, and the state in the age of global capitalism. Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield.
Bhagwati, J. (2004). In Defense of Globalisation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bosrock, R. M., (2012).“As Political Borders Fade, Cultural Differences Re-emerge”. Retrieved 1st November 2012. Available at: http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/cultur1.htm
Brocker, J., et al, (2010). Innovation Clusters and Interregional Competition. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin and Heidelberg GmbH & Co. K.
Burke, A. The Perverse Perseverance of Sovereignty, Borderlands e-journal, Retrieved 1st November 2012. Available at:
Christiansen, T., (2005). “European Integration and Regional Cooperation”, in J. Baylis and S. Smith., The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, R. and Kennedy, P. (2002). Global Sociology. Palgrave.
Dicken, P. (2003). Global Shift: Reshaping the Global Economic Map in the 21st Century. London: Sage Publications.
Giddens, A (ed.) (2011). Sociology: Introductory Reading, Oxford: Polity.
Gill, S. and David, L. (2008) The Global Political Economy: Perspectives, Problems, and Policies. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press
Green, A. (1997). Education, globalization and the nation state. Basingstoke, Hampshire [u.a.], Macmillan [u.a.].
Guéhenno, J.-M. (2005). The end of the nation-state. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
Hall, P.A. and D. Soskice (2001). Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Held, D. (2009). Global transformations: politics, economics and culture. Stanford, Calif, Stanford Univ. Press.
Held, D., and McGrew, A. and Goldblatt, D., Perraton, J. (1999). Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, and Culture. Cambridge: Polity.
Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. (2009) Globalisation in Question. Cambridge: Polity.
Holton, R. J. (2008). Globalisation and the Nation-State. New York: Palgrave.
HYPERLINK “http://www.borderlandsejournal.adelaide.edu.au/vol1no2_2002/burke_perverse.html” http://www.borderlandsejournal.adelaide.edu.au/vol1no2_2002/burke_perverse.html
Lenhard, J. (2010). Is globalization causing the decline of the nation-state? München, GRIN Verlag GmbH. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:101:1-201009141048.
Mcgrew, A. G., & Lewis, P. G. (1991). Global politics: Globalization and the nation state. Polity Press.
Öhler, G. (2003). Globalisation: critical perspectives. New York, Nova Science Publ.
Ohmae, K. (1996) The End of The Nation State. London: HarperCollins.
Paul, T. V., & Ripsman, N. M. (2010). Globalization and the national security state. New York, Oxford University Press.
Reid, A., Gill, J., & Sears, A. M. (2010). Globalization, the nation-state and the citizen: dilemmas and directions for civics and citizenship education. New York, Routledge.
Ritzer, G. (2010). Globalisation: a basic text. Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell.
Shefner, J., & Fernández-Kelly, M. P. (2011). Globalisation and beyond: new examinations of global power and its alternatives. University Park, Pa, Pennsylvania State University Press.
Suter, K. (2003). Global order and global disorder: globalisation and the nation-state. Westport, Conn. [u.a.], Praeger.
Does Equity Principle Matter To Animals In What Ways On What Basis Might Discrimination Against Some Animas Be Justified
Does Equity Principle Matter To Animals? In What Ways? On What Basis Might Discrimination Against Some Animas Be Justified?
INTRODUCTION
The principle of equality implies that our concern for others out not to relies on how they behave, or what abilities they posses. It is on this line that we cannot exploit members of our race nor ignore the interest of the less intelligent people in our society. However, this principle also does apply to other non-human species and that since animals are not members of our species we have a right to exploit them. Similarly, the fact that some animals are less intelligent than we are does not mean that their interests cannot be regarded. Thus, the debate of whether to extent the equity principle to animals starts with having a clear understanding of the nature of the principle of equal consideration of interests (LESLEY J ROGERS 2004).
In fact some classical thinkers like Jeremy Bentham alluded to the equality principle. In his doctrine of ‘modern utilitarianism’, Bentham advocated for equal consideration of interests in some form or other as a basic just principle (Bentham 1876). That the number of legs, the colour and texture of the skin or the termination of the os sacrum are not enough reasons to abandon a sensitive being to the same fate
Bentham points to the capacity for suffering as a reason enough to make humans and non-human species like animals to be entitled to equal consideration. He asserts that, the capacity for suffering and enjoyment is not just another characteristic like the capacity to learn a new language or to better grades is school. This capacity is actually a requirement to having interests of all kind, a condition that should be dealt with before thinking of interests in any meaningful way. Just as a young boy does not enjoy pain the mouse also does not like being tormented. If any being of any kind suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what nature of being, the principle of equality requires that the suffering be counted equally with the like suffering of any other being. If a living thing is cannot be subjected to suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment and happiness, there is nothing to be taken into account.
Commonly, racists violate the principle of equality by being biased with regard to the interests of their own racial beings by turning a blind eye to interests of others races especially when there is a clash of interest. Pain is as bad when it is felt by dogs or cats as when it is felt by humans. How bad a pain is, depends on how long it lasts and the intensity, but pains of same duration and intensity are equally bad, whether felt by humans or animals.
Though we can never directly experience the pain of another being, whether that being is human or not we can feel it. Just as a human being cries when in animals in pain act in much similar way as humans behave, and their actions is adequate explanation for the certainty that they undergo pain. With the exception of those apes that have been taught to communicate by sign language, animals like young children cannot actually say that they are feeling pain. However the two groups when in pain find other ways to make their inner states apparent. It is on this regard that we contend that animals and not plants- we cannot observe behaviour suggesting pain for and they also do not have a centrally organized nervous system like animals and human beings- deserve a right to the principle of equal consideration.
OBJECTIONS TO PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY
Despite the above argument however, there are many objections as to whether animals should be treated like humans and this objections arise from the several differences between humans and animals. These differences in turn do justify the discrepancy in the scope of rights that each species has access to. Such that as much as we may thumb our chest and call out for equality between humans and animals, the existing differences among them make the process of bridging the gap almost impossible. For instance, most non-human animals are used as food stuffs in a number of households. This is perhaps the oldest and the most widespread form of animal use ad as being justified even biblically at God created animals for our pleasure and convenience.
If animals count in their own right, then our day to day animal meat use becomes doubtful particularly when animal meat is a comfort rather than a requirement. Eskimos existing in surroundings where they must slaughter animals for food or starve may be justified in claiming that their interest in existing supersedes that of the animals they slaughter. In fact, most of us cannot defend our diet in this way. In view of the ethics of the use of animal flesh for human food in industrialized societies, we are considering a situation in which a relatively minor human interest must be balanced against the lives and welfare of the animals involved. This contradicts the principle of equal consideration of interests which does not allow major interests to be sacrificed for minor interests. Therefore, to avoid speciesism against animals we must stop these practices, which mean that we should not eat chicken, pork or beef; unless we know that the meat we are eating was not produced by factory farm methods. It is also correct in the context of eggs, unless they are specifically sold as ‘free range’.
The matter of performing experiments on animals also raises questions on the equality principle. Here the issue stands out blatantly, because experimenters often seek to substantiate doing experiments on animals by alleging that the experiments direct us to discoveries about humans; if this is so, the experimenter must concur that both human and nonhuman animals are same in vital areas. For example, if forcing a rat to decide between ravenous to death and passage on electrified network to get food tells us whatever thing about the feelings of humans to stress, we must presume that the rat encounters stress in this kind of situation. From the above, and may other examples we acknowledge that animals and humans do not have a fair treatment to equal consideration. Because if it were so, then humans would also have been used as experiment samples, but since human life is observed to be more critical and precious they are favoured.
Mark you, not all experiments can be defended on the basis that they alleviate more misery than they cause. Since humans have more reasoning capacity and power virtually over all animals they force them into conditions of their choice in a bid to prove or test what they want. In these cases, and many others like them, the benefits to humans are either non-existent or very uncertain; while the losses to members of other species are certain and real (O’Sullivan 2011). Moreover, if experiments are not prepared to use orphaned humans with harsh and permanent intellect damage, their willingness to use nonhuman animals like apes, monkeys, dogs and cats among others indicate biasness on the basis of species alone. Yet these nonhuman animals are more intelligent, more aware of what is happening to them, and even more sensitive to pain. On the other hand, the severely brain damaged humans barely survive in mental institutions and hospitals. Hence the experiments indicate a bias to give equal consideration to the interests of all beings, irrespective of species. The amount of experiments done on animals would hence reduce if prejudice was reduced.
There is also a claim by philosophers that there is a more profound difference between humans and nonhuman animals. They claim that animals cannot think or reason, and that consequently they neither have conception of themselves nor self-consciousness. They live from moment to moment, and do not see themselves as discrete elements with a history and expectations. They also do not have self-rule, the ability to decide how to survive one’s life. It has been observed that autonomous, self-conscious beings are more useful, more morally significant, than beings that live from instant to instant, without the ability to see themselves as discrete beings with a history and an expectation. Accordingly the interests of autonomous, self-conscious beings sought normally to take advantage over other beings interests. This assertion is even compatible with the principle of equal consideration of interests if it amounts to no more than the claim that something which happens to a self conscious being can cause it to suffer more than if the being were not self-conscious. This might be because the self conscious creature has greater awareness of what is happening, can fit the event into the overall framework of a longer time period, and so on (Guither 1998).
There is another possible reply to the claim that self-consciousness, or autonomy, or some similar characteristic, can serve to distinguish human from nonhuman animals: recall that there are mentally defective humans who have less claim to be self-conscious or autonomous than many nonhuman animals. If we use these characteristics to place a gulf between humans and other animals, we place these unfortunate humans on the other side of the gulf; and if the gulf is taken to mark a difference in moral status, then these humans would have the moral status of animals rather than humans.
CONCLUSION
Despite the objection of the case of equity principle for animals, many animals’ liberations or animal rights movements have sprung up. Tribute to these movements, some of the worst animals’ abuses, like the Draize and LD50 test are now less prevalent, however, they have not been alleviated. The fur trade for example, has come under attack in Britain, Australia and USA. In fact, come countries are also stating to legislate animal rights policies and incorporating them in their national laws. For instance, Switzerland has prohibited the cage system of keeping laying hens while Britain has outlawed raising of calves in individual stalls and is phasing out individual stall for pigs. All these are milestone achievements in the move towards equal consideration between humans and nonhumans.
ALL ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUAL
Like the human species, the animal species is diverse in specify of requirements, skills and needs, thus it becomes difficult to draw a line between those to be given privilege of protection from abuse and those to be mistreated. Some propositions however, suggest that animals rights should be accorded to a given group based on the level of cognition. Such that the greater an animal’s sense of awareness and the more advanced its cognition, the better its species is included as a recipient of a set of new privileges.
Based on Steven Wise’s mirror test, if an individual recognize the image it sees on the screen is itself and not another member of its species, then it can be said to be self-aware and thus can be awarded rights and even to its entire species. Intelligence test is also another unit that can be used to draw a line in the according of animal rights. General animals that are more like beings are regarded to be more intelligent and thus enjoy more rights than their counterparts.
Based on the evolutionary process it is suggested that Apes are closest relatives of humans. Chimpanzees and Gorillas are also said to have separated from humans in some years in the evolution process. In this regard, these animals are said to have similar genes to humans and are assumed to have similar functionality and thus treated specially than other animals (Regan 2004).
Another phenomenon that can be used to discriminate animals is the theory of the mind, which refers to one’s ability to know what another individual might be thinking of or believing in. This theory also includes observing the direction of another individual’s gaze. So far, all experiments show that apes have a better theory of the mind that is close to that of the humans. Further, experiment show that domestic dogs have the best social cues than all animals and this is just another reason why extension of rights to all animals is vital
The ability to plan for the future: intentionality is another component that could be used in rights discrimination against some animals. For instance, some animals have depicted tendencies to prepare for time to come such as storing food for future use or to build a nest for raising young ones. Also, the group hunting process illustrated in some animals like chimpanzees and also dogs not only show a level of intelligence but also cooperation and coordination at a notch higher. At the very least, a well coordinated group requires efficient communication which only a well-knit group can acquire (Singer 2008).
The ability to communicate with other animals is also another aspect that reflects a higher cognitive ability in animals. Apes, for example, are capable of using sign language and also pointing to objects. Not only verbal communication can be used to measure cognitively, but also body posture, odours and facial expressions are used to transmit information. The complexity of songs in birds, for instance is also taken to be a form of communication.
Apart from the above, the size of the brain and also ability to form images of unseen objects by some animals is used to indicate higher cognitive and thus more rights.
References
Bentham, J 1876, An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Guither, HD 1998, Animal rights : history and scope of a radical social movement, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
LESLEY J ROGERS, GK 2004, ALL ANIMALS ARE NOT EQUALThe interface between scientific knowledge and legislation of animal rigths.
O’Sullivan, S 2011, Animals, equality and democracy, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Regan, T 2004, The case for animal rights : updated with a new preface, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Singer, P 2008, Practical ethics, 2nd edn, Cambridge Univ. Press.
Does Canadas Private health care system provide better patient satisfaction and access to health care than the United States
Does Canada’s Private health care system provide better patient satisfaction and access to health care than the United States’ health care system? Is it a good or bad trend?
Name
Affiliation
Introduction
In Canada, every individual has the access to medical care and discrimination is rare in the medical sector; discrimination based on an individual’s ability to pay, health insurance and Socio- economic status. Nonetheless, citizens in the country are faced with various restrictions on gaining access to better health care due to lack of hospital beds, shortage of health care providers, and longer waiting time to access a provider. Because of these challenges, private health care is the best option for Canadians. Despite the inadequacies, the current literature states that only 40% of the Canadian population are unsatisfied with their health care and are not in favor of private health care. About 54% of the United States population who support private health care to state that public medical care is unsatisfactory (Armstrong, Armstrong & Fegan, 1998).
Despite the fact that the United States is the leading country in the world with respect to health care expenditure, more than 42 million Americans have not access to medical insurance. There are more individuals in America without insurance than the whole population of Canada, with others in the US underinsured. This means that vast populations of Americans do not seek medical attention each year as they opted because they cannot afford to pay for the services from their “pockets.” The cost of medical treatment is the leading cause of America financial crisis (Deber, 2003). A number of plans have been recommended over the years to change U.S health care system. Some of these proposed changes include switching to private health care similar to the steps taken by Canada.
The Canadian constitution states that health care responsibilities rest with territorial and provincial governments. The system was developed by territorial and provincial authorities that have attained a national program composed of a series of interlocking health care plans which the Canadian government funds. Hospital services include inpatient care in the wards unless medical necessity warrants otherwise. Although the government has done its best in ensuring health care is provided in the best way possible, the best option was privatize public hospital in order to getter outstanding medical care for its vast population.The sparse nature of the population is the main cause of health care related problem in the country resulting to private health care as the best alternative that can reach the entire population (Gray, 1998). 60% of the Canadian health care expenses comes from public allocation placing it among the least publicly financed countries. Despite the fact that Canadian hospitals are known as public institutions, they are privately owned by non-profit organizations. Thus, lacks socialized medicine as believed because of a high number of privately owned hospitals.
Canada’s Health Care System
The territorial and provincial system of health care that Canada has poses challenges to the country health care. The diverse population proves to be challenging to manage health-wise. Because of this, the country as opted to use private nom-profit organization to manage its health care.The United States’ Health Care System American contemporary health care system is a sophisticated mix of private and public services and insurance. The citizens get health insurance and services from a variety of private and public sources (Grove, 2006). Most of them get health insurance and care from their workplaces and pay for a subsidized monthly premiums for these services. At old age, all Americans are eligible to apply for Medicare; quality public funded health insurance. Public assistance recipients in United States are allowed to apply to get more restricted health care insurance from Medicaid program that covers vision and dental needs.
Health Care System Costs
In 1992, the United States Accounting office estimated that the country health administration costs were approaching Canadian level as it could be able to cover the uninsured population. Wool handler et al. (2003), considered that the administration cost included health benefit programs, practitioners’ offices, nursing homes costs, home care agencies expenses, and other hospital costs. The result of the study indicated that United States spends $678 more per capita on health care as compared to Canada (Devereaux et al,. 2004). Patient Satisfaction
The commonwealth Fund International shows that 40% of Canadians were not satisfied with their health care system compared to 50% of United States citizens. The Americans cited a high cost and inadequate medical coverage as the main reasons for their dissatisfaction while the Canadians cited shortage of health care professional and lack of hospital beds. Pocket payment is one of the key concerns affecting both countries. It is a financial problem for all citizens to pay for medical care from their pockets hence increasing the mortality rate in both countries over the last five years.
Graph 1
153289062865
The above graph indicates that Canada is highly viewed health care-wise as compared to United States. Access to Health Care The literature reviews show that both countries have shortcomings in their medical or health care systems, with each state having a different problem. In the United States, dilemma regarding medical care rotates around underinsured and low-income citizens, whereby health care insurance does not cater for the needed services and patients’ cannot afford to pay by their own (Gray, 1998). As a result, the country opted to used generalized health care system to cater for all the citizens such as the Obama health care act. Whereas in Canada, the problem is centralized with health care categorization to the territorial and provincial authorities, who failed to address the concerns of its citizens opting to privatize health care to non-profit organizations. Survey conducted noted that 54% of Canadians said that getting a specialist help when needed was hard, compared to only 23% of Americans. In the United States, 28 percent stated that they had problems due to high cost while 21 percent of Canadians reported the same. The graph below shows the percentage of those getting difficulties.
114236571755
Discussion
The intention for conducting the systematic review was to determine if Canada private health care offers better patient satisfaction and access to health care as compared to the current health care system in United States. The literature review indicates that Canadian patients are satisfied with the private health care system in place than the Americans are with theirs. Although, health care access is limited in both states (Armstrong & Fegan, 1998). Despite the fact that all people in Canada are provided with medical cover, the system does not guarantee bed space when one is admitted, limited access to health care providers or specialists. Canadian patients face long waiting lines when trying to seek appointment with a doctor due to a large number of patients able to seek medical care in private facilities, in fact, several Canadian doctors have left the country since they believe that they cannot offer required care in Canada.In addition, the shortage of hospital beds in public hospitals delays many patients from getting skilled care they need. Canadian citizens are complete with each other for available space in private health care facilities. Also, health care has proved expensive in Canada; the average Canadian spends 58% of his income in taxes (Deber, 2003).Literature indicates that in the United States, access of health care is a problem due to a high cost of health care and limited health insurance. Individuals without insurance cover go without medical treatment due to their inability to pay for needed services.
Recommendation for Future Studies
Future studies ought to be undertaken to see how medical problems can be overcome so that patients in both states are not only to ensure that they get proper providers and facilities when they seek medical care but also guaranteed equal access to health care. Gaps in the literature include lack of unsystematic controlled trails. Such studies are hard to obtain when dealing with such data, because patient satisfaction rate come from opinions. The Canadian approach to health care has both positive and negative aspects in regard to their national medical/health care. The positive element is that its citizens do not want to get rid of their public national medical care. With this in mind, the United States much look at Canada’s private health care as a model for reform. This means that Canadian are happy with the introduction of private health care hence a good trend.ConclusionPatient’s satisfaction rate based in private health care is high in Canada than in the United States, however, access to health care is a problem to both countries. One can conquer that Canada has greater access to medical care since all the citizens can readily access private health care provider without paying for insurance. Although, the long waiting time and shortage of beds restrict many individuals from getting medical care.Not all Canadians are 100% satisfied with the state of private health care system, but when asked what changes to be made, they offered feedback and are opposed to eradication of national or public health care. They stated that other provinces and territories have enough public health facilities which if renovated can offer medical care.
References
Armstrong, P., Armstrong, H., & Fegan, C. (1998). Universal health care: What the United States can learn from the Canadian experience. New Press.
Deber, R. B. (2003). Health care reform: Lessons from Canada. American Journal of Public Health, 93(1), 20-24.
Devereaux, P. J., Heels-Ansdell, D., Lacchetti, C., Haines, T., Burns, K. E., Cook, D. J., … & Guyatt, G. H. (2004). Payments for care at private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 170(12), 1817-1824.
Gray, G. (1998). Access to medical care under strain: new pressures in Canada and Australia. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 23(6), 905-947.
Grove, C. (2006). Does Canada’s national health care system provide better patient satisfaction and access to health care than the United States’ health care system?.
Woolhandler, S., Campbell, T., & Himmelstein, D. U. (2003). Costs of health care administration in the United States and Canada. New England Journal of Medicine, 349(8), 768-775.