Good health outcomes can also be good for economy
WHAT’S a life worth? Would you pay $200,000 to keep a loved one alive for another year?
Last week former Prime Minister Tony Abbott courted a little controversy in a speech he gave to the United Kingdom Policy Exchange, and I agree with him on one point. Mr Abbott was arguing that governments need to be willing to pose, “uncomfortable questions about a level of deaths we might have to live with”.
He was discussing the impact of the COVID-19 lock downs and seemed to be wondering aloud if we might “open up” sooner rather than later. He calculated it would cost Australians $200,000 per year of life for those who would otherwise die.
Ethics is sometimes viewed as an abstract or academic pursuit of noble ideas. With our current situation we are making ethical decisions every day. Should I wash my hands? Should I socially distance? Must I wear a mask? Is my responsibility just to myself or to the broader community?
One of the basic concepts in ethics is known as the “double effect”. This doctrine says that if a person does something morally good which has a morally bad side-effect it’s ethically OK to do it providing the bad side effect wasn’t intended.
Things get messy when we are faced with two goods which can impact negatively.
The first good is our public health, to take all measures possible to reduce the spread of the virus.
The second good is the promotion of a healthy economy, to ensure that people have livelihoods so that they can meet their basic human needs as well as contribute to the common good.
So a dichotomy can emerge. Open Up vs Lock Down. Public Health vs the Economy.
Those in the economy corner like to cite the example of Sweden, a country that took the “herd immunity” or “let it rip” approach.
Australia could be viewed as a whole as a nation that has favoured the public health of all as an approach.
Whether it is to eliminate or suppress the virus is a matter of degrees. As it stands right now Sweden has had roughly 5835 deaths per 10 million population while Australia has had 750 deaths for about 26 million people.
I know where I’d rather be.
But of course it is never that simple. Alan Kohler the economist who fronts ABC television news every weekday night presented a fascinating graph last week.
Deloitte Access Economics plotted the number of deaths per million people against the loss of a nation’s GDP.
And guess what? The countries with the lowest number of deaths such as Australia, South Korea, Japan and Germany had the least drop in GDP. Towards the bottom of the table were Sweden, the US, UK and Italy.
Good health outcomes can also be good for the economy.
If we are to have the difficult conversation around acceptable number of deaths as suggested by Mr Abbott the faith tradition that I belong to (the same one as Mr Abbott coincidentally) starts with the most vulnerable.
We do not accept that frail people will die. We do not see them as something that is ‘disposable’ for the common good.
We start with those most affected. And the leader of that faith tradition, Pope Francis gives a clear direction on how we approach “opening up” the economy.
We start with industries that include the excluded, that promote the most vulnerable, and that do the right thing by the environment.
And to end on a lighter but important note. I add my congratulations and gratitude to newly retired police Sergeant Alex Singleton.
There are so many times I witnessed him serve and protect the community with humility, humour and courage. He made our community stronger and safer and helped create a place where people knew they could belong. Enjoy your retirement!