Skip to main content

Pulling together

For the first time since WW2, we are reminded of how facing a major crisis we must pull together as a society.

The coronavirus pandemic has exposed how fragile our social infrastructure has become after a decade of austerity.  Whilst not making the response to COVID-19 party political, the Tory government must acknowledge the need to invest in our communities, in social care, and other key services.  These are just as vital to our economic well-being as any factory.

But this requires the government to ensure there is support for our key services.  We must never again allow our social support system to become so fragile.



Just as bridges and roads, rail-links and ports are vital to our economy, so also is the fabric of our health and care system.  The government must once again start investing in people and communities.

Much will be done by volunteer support groups, and that is a wonderful thing.  Indeed, we must all consider what it is we are doing for our loved ones, our friends and neighbours.  We are in this together.

Almost all sectors are the economy is likely to take a hit, with the risk of unemployment as people are laid off.  They must not become another statistic to be filed away in the Office for National Statistics. People need support as well as businesses to see them through this crisis.

After what appeared to be a faltering start, the government appears to be more open and responsive to the changes necessary, although watching the Health Minister on BBC's Newsnight she gave little assurance that the government were responding to the needs of health care workers.

The government also needs to sharpen up its messaging.  It is good to see that this is now happening.  Too many were left wondering exactly what the government's intentions were.






Comments

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

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

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho