Skip to main content

Mindless cuts in public health

There is an olde adage that prevention is better than cure.  This is why investment in public health is vital.   In the end, it pays for itself in a healthy workforce and productivity and reduces the burden on overstretched clinical services.   That much is obvious.  But not to the government.

Funding on public health has been a significant victim of mindless austerity. 

A report published this week  shows how the cuts have had a devastating effect, and this has been particularly acute in the most deprived areas of the country with swingeing cuts in, for example, sexual health services,  health protection and advice,  drug and alcohol services.

Almost £1 in every £7 cut from public health services has come from England’s ten most deprived communities - compared to just £1 in every £46 in the country’s ten least deprived places.

This is another reason why mindless austerity has been both economically blinkered and morally wrong.   It is ethically wrong because it penalised the poorest and least advantaged, while the government ring-fenced the wealthiest. 

The cuts in the most deprived areas have been six times more savage than those in better-off regions. 

This has been one of the most disgraceful features of the Tory government's mindless cruelty. 

This is also why the choice facing voters in the general election is so vital.  Do we want to create a fair society, or do we want to continue pulling the country further apart with the most impoverished suffering most?






Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba
7 comments
Read more

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to
2 comments
Read more

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown

Post a Comment
Read more