Putting financial considerations before children’s lives
By Fleur
@Fleura (34954)
United Kingdom
October 26, 2016 7:17am CST
Not too long ago I heard a group of parents angrily accusing the government of putting financial considerations before children’s lives, because the NHS (national health service which provides free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare for all British residents) did not provide vaccinations for a particular rare but dangerous childhood disease.
Now of course this is headline-grabbing stuff, pitting the evil money-grabbing authorities against the unfortunate but loving parents who just want to save the children – but of course the amount of money available to the NHS is limited to the amount raised in taxes from all of us, and someone has to decide on the best value for money using the resources available because it just isn’t possible to pay for every possible option. In some cases the money would be better spent on a treatment which would benefit more people, such as vaccination against a more common disease.
What I thought was ironic was the argument put forward by the parents – because surely putting financial considerations before children’s lives is exactly what they are doing to their own children. The vaccinations are available privately at a price, but for most this is in the tens of pounds, so not totally out of reach but similar to a couple of take-away meals for a family for example. If the parents were really concerned that their children’s health was priceless, they could save up and pay for the vaccinations themselves, yet they did not do so.
What do you think?
All rights reserved. © Text and image copyright Fleur 2016.
10 people like this
7 responses
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
26 Oct 16
I have often thought precisely what you say here. I remember all the women at work often using the old phrase "What price a child's life?" when talking about such articles in the news. Of course if the government raised taxation by 20% to cover all potential expenses they would I an uproar about it.
People seem to think that the government is able to spend more money than is collected.
2 people like this
@Fleura (34954)
• United Kingdom
26 Oct 16
I agree, it's odd isn't it? What I can't understand is why, when this sort of thing comes up, the government minister doesn't just come out and say something like 'OK, if you want this vaccine for all children under the age of one, that will cost £xx per year, so divided by the number of taxpayers that would be £z per person per year, are you willing to pay that?' (I know it isn't as simple as that but it might make the point). As you say people don't seem to understand that the money available to spend ultimately comes from all of us in the first place, not from some mysterious other magical source!
2 people like this
@aninditasen (18198)
• Raurkela, India
26 Oct 16
Those parents whose financial position has just turned worse how can they afford the vaccination.
2 people like this
@aninditasen (18198)
• Raurkela, India
28 Oct 16
@FleuraYou know best the financial conditions of your country and what they can do or not do.
1 person likes this
@BelleStarr (61463)
• United States
26 Oct 16
If they raised taxes that would cause an uproar among all the people especially those without young children. If it is rare, what is their problem? If they want it, pay for it.
1 person likes this
@BelleStarr (61463)
• United States
26 Oct 16
@Fleura Well I guess it is time to start thinking.
2 people like this
@Fleura (34954)
• United Kingdom
26 Oct 16
Very few people even consider paying for something like that. The general mindset is that the rich may have private healthcare, and everyone else is treated on the NHS; the idea of paying for some sort of extra that isn't included is rarely even thought of.
2 people like this
@Poppylicious (11134)
• United Kingdom
28 Oct 16
Won't someone please think of the children!? Grrr ...
Btw, who is that beautiful child in the picture? So cute!
2 people like this
