Log in

No account? Create an account
I'm just had my tooth out on the NHS. A few years ago, I had a… - Sally's Journal
August 8th, 2006
12:38 pm


Previous Entry Share Next Entry

(58 comments | Leave a comment)

Date:August 8th, 2006 12:35 pm (UTC)
Various other flaws, not necessarily exhaustive:

Where people are 'weak' and need welfare because of poverty, it is not necessarily due to their genes, but due to the economic structure of society. Poverty is passed down generations - but again that is a societal choice to make that so. In egalitarian Scandinavia, the children of the bottom 20% are far more likely to make it out of the bottom 20% than in the inegalitarian USA (or the UK) - the "American dream" of rags to riches is a myth, or at least a statistical improbability.

Most of the evidence shows that expenditure on health promotes economic growth, as it increases the productivity of the labour force.

The argument assumes that the only value of human beings is economic value. That if someone costs more to care for than they put into the economy through their work, then they have negative value. I shouldn't need to go into why this is wrong.

The argument that not allowing the 'weak' to breed (where we have restricted the definition of 'weak' to those who we are confident are weak because of their genes rather than anything else) 'minimises hurt' fails to account for the hurt of sterilisation, of not being able to have children. If you were to consider a strict cost-benefit analysis (ignoring the moral equation), you would have to calculate the increased probability of someone's children requiring care, times the cost of the care, versus the hurt caused by sterilisation. How to measure the latter? Well if we consider the amount that people with fertility problems are willing to spend to be able to have children, this would seem to be very high. It seems far from clear that your cost-benefit analysis would come out positive.

It's wrong and an offence to basic human dignity.
Powered by LiveJournal.com