The purpose of this work is to show the importance of ethical consistency and its application in the decision-making process when allocating health care resources with respect to the Canada Health Act. Based on the specific decisions in its history and the development of its principles, I suggest that the Act can be interpreted as indicating a particular moral basis and that this could have an influence on how resources are allocated. I will focus on three claims supporting the argument that services can be delivered in a consistent and methodical manner that respects this particular moral foundation. First, the outcomes of decisions justified by simultaneous use of logically incompatible and distinct moral theories are problematic. I suggest that an approach to reasoning that uses one type of moral theory throughout the decision-making process results in less ambiguous outcomes. Second, based on key points in the history of the Canada Health Act, I believe there is a moral theory, deontological in nature, and that it captures the spirit behind the Act's development and current formulation. Third, decision-makers in Canada should follow one deontological theory when allocating health care resources to avoid inconsistencies, and to work within the moral framework of the Act as I have interpreted it. A delivery system that consistently follows this procedure may have different outcomes than the current methods of macro-allocation, and these differences may have effects on the amount and availability of health care services.