Letter: The market value of newborn lives
Your support helps us to tell the story
This election is still a dead heat, according to most polls. In a fight with such wafer-thin margins, we need reporters on the ground talking to the people Trump and Harris are courting. Your support allows us to keep sending journalists to the story.
The Independent is trusted by 27 million Americans from across the entire political spectrum every month. Unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock you out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. But quality journalism must still be paid for.
Help us keep bring these critical stories to light. Your support makes all the difference.
Sir: On reading Liz Hunt's article (20 January) on the Office of Health Economics report on premature birth costs, I couldn't help but reflect on how, in a society immersed in market values, so very few seem willing to accept the principle of cost in any form.
How interesting also that those whose main concern is economic cost seek constantly to express it in terms of personal cost, or cost to society as a whole.
Jane Griffin, who we are told researched the report, sets so much store by her sums that she feels enabled to determine the 'eventual expected quality of life' for those under scrutiny.
So we are now to accept economists such as Ms Griffin and George Teeling Smith deciding for us what constitutes quality of life and whether or not it is deemed worthy to exist.
Most of us to whom they feel able to make their proposals with impunity are not disabled, disadvantaged, ill, old, unborn or premature. Just as well, it seems.
There is nothing new in money being more important than people. What is new is that there is now no need to hide it on the part of those who lead or seek to influence us.
Yours sincerely,
GERARD KIVLEHAN
Hexham, Northumberland
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments