This is a specious argument.

A healthcare provider has a special responsibility because of the nature of their work. By definition, their role involves providing essential care to those in need. Their professional mission and the ethical codes guiding them (e.g., the Hippocratic Oath for physicians) emphasize patient welfare above all. An average person, while still morally capable of altruism, does not have a professional, codified duty to care for others’ health as a primary function of their life. They are not the designated or societally recognized gatekeepers of life-saving services.

In short, it’s not just about the availability of money; it’s about the nature and structure of the activity. Healthcare isn’t merely a commodity; it’s a critical social good. The moral expectations for an industry entrusted with people’s lives are and should be different from those applied to random private individuals.

Healthcare providers, especially large corporations, control access to life-saving goods and services. When such entities profit substantially, they do so from a position of gatekeeping essential health resources. They often have significant market power and can influence prices, accessibility, and quality of care. This is categorically different from an individual’s personal discretionary spending, which does not impose direct barriers between people in need and the care required to save their lives. The moral outrage about profit in healthcare often centers on the idea that unnecessary suffering or death occurs not because of a lack of resources in general, but because of a deliberate choice to prioritize profit margins over patient well-being. When an individual chooses to keep their discretionary income rather than donate it, that is not typically a case of withholding a life-saving resource they directly control. It’s a missed opportunity for altruism, yes—but it’s not a systematic withholding of lifesaving treatment from a dependent patient population.

The more direct your ability to help and the more acute the need, the stronger the moral obligation. A hospital that can provide a life-saving drug at a lower price but chooses not to, in order to maximize profit, is directly and immediately impacting patients’ lives. In contrast, an ordinary person’s failure to donate their personal entertainment budget to global health charities is morally less direct and involves a much more diffuse causal chain. The responsibility is mitigated by lack of proximity, lack of direct obligation, and lack of any professional or social contract stating that their role is to provide healthcare.

Your argument tries to equate personal, optional altruism with the professional moral obligations of healthcare providers, but these are not parallel situations. The ethical landscape is more nuanced: Institutions and professionals whose entire function is to safeguard and restore health must be held to a standard consistent with that mission. This does not require expecting every individual to donate all surplus income, nor does it demand that healthcare only be provided by charities. It simply recognizes that the context and nature of healthcare services place a different and higher ethical obligation on those who profit from them.