"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - The Declaration of Independence, 1776

As the debate intensifies over society's obligation to make adequate healthcare available to all its members, many Progressives embrace the notion that the unalienable right to life inevitably implies the right of all Americans to the healthcare needed to save lives and avert suffering.

Others disagree, invoking the established principle that no one can claim an unlimited right to infringe on the freedoms or well-being of others.

"Natural law states that people have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A good is something you work for and earn. It might be a need, like food, but more "goods" seem to be becoming "rights" in our culture, and this has troubling consequences. It might seem harmless enough to decide that people have a right to things like education, employment, housing or healthcare. But if we look a little further into the consequences, we can see that the workings of the community and economy are thrown wildly off balance when people accept those ideas.

First of all, other people must pay for things like healthcare. Those people have bills to pay and families to support, just as you do. If there is a "right" to healthcare, you must force the providers of those goods, or others, to serve you." - Ron Paul

Who is correct? Is there an unlimited right to adequate healthcare? Is there a right to healthcare, but limited by a requirement that your "right" not impose burdens on others? Or is healthcare not a right at all, but simply a privilege - a gift we may choose to bestow on others as a token of our generosity?

Because these questions involve fundamental differences in social philosophy and individual temperament, I expect them to remain as intractable in the realm of current policy disputes as they are contentious. My own perspective, therefore, is that the right to healthcare is an issue best left unresolved.

In support of this position, let me quote next from a document that also refrains from suggesting that any human has a "right" to demand a service from another human, but rather rephrases the question in terms of what humans must demand of themselves.

It is from Matthew 25. "The King" refers to Jesus, and I must preface this citation by disclosing that although I am not a Christian, I find the spiritual dimensions of what follows too fundamental not to be shared beyond the confines of a particular belief system.

"Then the King will say...'for I was hungry and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you gave me drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me...

I was naked and you clothed me. I was sick and you visited me. I was in prison and you came to me.'

Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?

And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'

And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me'"

Now, I find it striking that nowhere in the above passage does God refer to the right of the hungry to demand food, nor the right of the sick to demand care. God says instead, "No, they are not demanding food from you, nor are they the ones demanding care from you - I am the one who demands it."

Whether this is the literal God of Christianity, or the essential humanity within us that is our own form of divinity, it is a power that imposes the obligation to care not from outside but from within. And for some of us at least, who hear our own inner voices louder than the shouts of outside demanders, it is a power that must be obeyed.

Not all may hear voices equally loud, but we can ask all to listen for them. And so, I suggest that if friends or colleagues are reluctant to concede another's right to impose healthcare expenses on them, it might be wise to agree. Instead, you can ask what it means if they impose that same obligation on themselves. Would they see that as a relationship with their God in which, as the document goes, "as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me", or do they think they would merely be doing God a favor?