Pretty much a law of nature I would have thought. Its only humans who think that this rule can be negated. So when Ron Paul says that AIDS is primarily an illness of choice (I know there are exceptions where AIDS can be had for no fault of their own), hence their treatment should also be loaded by the market as far as the cost is concerned. See here.
The Texas congressman wrote in his book, "Freedom Under Siege," that people with sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS bear some responsibility for their condition and should not burden others with the cost of their care.
"The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim -- frequently a victim of his own lifestyle -- but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care," he wrote.
Asked about the comments on "Fox News Sunday," Paul said: "I don't know how you can change science." Sexually transmitted diseases are "caused by sexual activity," he said, and "in a free society people do dumb things, but it isn't to be placed as a burden on other people, innocent people."
"Why should they have to pay for the consequences?" he said.
Paul called that idea a "socialistic attitude" and said insurance companies should determine coverage. "The market should handle this," he said.
The congressman said the law certainly shouldn't deny AIDS patients coverage, but suggested they should be subject to the same considerations insurance companies make for other groups -- like smokers.
"You don't have a right to demand that somebody else take care of you because of your habits," Paul said.
Quite right. Here in the UK where the NHS provides blanket coverage, medical treatment is withheld for many diseases for people who are obese or drink or smoke. These are choices that the chap has made, so doctors obviously and very correctly think that there is no point in providing scarce resources on people who obviously will not benefit from it. Or let them pay for it. Why should you and I pay for the choices somebody else has made? If you have the right to a choice, you also have a duty to pay for it. You cannot enjoy and then let others pay the price for it, yes?
Another example is the current breast implant scare here in the UK. So apparently the breast implant bit is faulty. And then people seem to be asking for taxpayer money to help remove them. Why? Did you ask me when you put them in? Then why am I being asked to pay for you to take them out? Or as Sean Gabb memorably puts it:
“If I had no right to fondle these breast implants when they were put in, why should I be obliged to pay for them to be taken out?”