Government values saving lifes for $1,093,333 each
$164m for cervical cancer vaccine
It’s so good to see that Auntie Helen values each woman’s life as worth $1,093,333.
That’s how much she is willing to spend of our tax money to immunise young girls to prevent them catching cervical cancer.
$164,000,000 over 5 years, = $32,8000,000 per year, to save an estimated 30 lives.
Since Prostate Cancer kills some 600 men each year, can we expect Auntie Helen to be just as generous? That’s only $3.28 BILLION over the next 5 years. How about Auntie Helen? How about it?
Or don’t you care?
Posts RSS 2.0
Hitler wanted a nation of blue eyed blondes.Helen just wants girls.
Comment by rosie — Fri 2nd May 2008 @ 10:09 pm
To spend this amount of money, per estimated life saved, is reasonably consistent with present practice on decisions about modifying road work proposals to result in fewer road deaths - for example to spend an extra $1,000,000 to save one estimated life.
Transit NZ regularly surveys public attitudes, by overt questioning and by asking about people’s behaviour, would you spend $X for this safety measure..? [Attitudes to spending for safety differ fairly significantly between countries, even with similar ethnic and cultural mixes eg NZ, Australia, UK and USA. Care must be taken over the word "estimated" as such arguments may be easily manipulated by "adjusting" the estimates, to force the idealogical conclusions that the funder wishes to drive.]
On tonights TV1 News Helen Clark remarked that prostate screening could only be worthwhile if there were proven effective treatments that would be applied, as a result of the information from the screening.
At present, the prostate treatment processes are not yet sufficiently effective (in terms of dollar cost plus pain and interference costs), to justify Government expenditure on a screening programme.
Individual citizens are free to disagree and pay privately for the screening tests. (If this screening test showed a clear problem, then Government funding is available for the standard treatment options.)
The following article in NZ Herald records Labour’s new programme to reduce suicide, mainly focussing on youth and Maori suicide:
Murray Bacon’s comments:
I am pleased to compliment Jim Anderton and Labour on this talked about proposed programme.
In gauging the values of the people who have decided the priorities for this programme, it seems that the largest groups, in terms of suicides per year are younger and middle aged men. [Jim Anderton is more or less in this group himself, albeit at the oldest end of the range.] This Government programme has been setup to focus on youth and Maori.
If you compare Govt spending per group of people affected, it does seem that younger and middle aged men have been carefully and quietly left out.
It may be that this Government programme has been targetted not on the basis of lives saved per $, but on life*remaining years saved. On this latter basis, more attention is focussed onto saving a teenager, than a middle aged man, as you save about twice as many years of life.
However, the apparent ignoring of younger and middle aged men isn’t just by a factor of two, it looks like a complete blind eye. [The words complete and blind hint at hidden values issues. Some say values are behind the eyes. If you don't honestly evaluate them, then thats the only place that they lie.]
This does lead me to wonder whether the targetting of the suicide programme is related to Labour’s unspoken (unspeakable?) policies on the relative value of a man and a woman’s life? [These same issues seem to show up in Labour's implementation of immigration policy, in admitting more women than men to NZ, in particular where normal education and economic criteria are not complied with.]
It might relate to Jim Anderton’s chivalry?
It might possibly relate to Jim Anderton’s personal experience, which is with loss of a young person. [I am not intending to criticize Jim Anderton, he is taking active steps on a topic he believes is important to society. I can only applaud his passion, vision, energy and actions.]
Maybe middle aged men are a generation of men who had it well drummed into them, that we were bred as cannon fodder, before we can value ourselves.
We need to value ourselves, before we can act to protect each other - in our age group. [The MADness of nuclear war now allows women to incinerate in thermal X-rays equally with men? I feel so much better thinking about it. Nuclear weapons are so PC.]
If we glance through NZ published research into suicide issues through the last 15 years, I believe NZ stands up very well by international comparison (adjusted per head of population). But, there does seem to be a focus onto youth, gender issues and ethnic issues.
It is interesting to observe that Prof A. Beautrais published works appear to relate to youth and Maori issues, far more than to younger and middle aged men. [Again, I am not making any criticism of Prof Beautrais, but I wonder that her research interests may be partially controlled by the fairly tight funder's control exercised within commercial academia. If middle aged men's main suicide drivers relate to breaches of natural justice, it is very difficult for academics to gain access to the raw information - the familycaught works hard to protect itself from competent evaluation.]
To escape the restrictive control of present Government funding, I tried to evaluate (without funding) the effectiveness of the present DV Act. It appears to save about 0.6 women per year since 1995 [although this estimate is probably optimistic, I believe that a more careful evaluation would reduce this figure somewhat].
Incidentally, the present operation of the familycaught, in enforcing this act the way they do (in my opinion illegally, they go beyond what Parliament envisaged that they would do), they have a roadkill factor, of additional deaths of about 10 to 15 men’s suicides per year and a further flow-on about 5 children’s suicides per year.
In attempting to save a number of women that could not exceed 15 per year, they actually save about 0.6 probably less) and kill a further almost 20 children and men. {This analysis ignores suffering issues, which are in addition.) These road kill deaths could be stopped by requiring familycaught to honour natural justice and the present legislation.
I am concerned about the values of the people who setup and run this system.
I do want to work, to help these people to publicly account for their actions and to appropriately carry responsibility for their actions. High up on the list is Sir Douglas Graham, from the NZ National Party.
In making the above claims, I do not have professional level social policy research skills. If you would like to critique my submission to NZ Justice Department, I would be happy to EMAIL a copy to you. It includes copies of all important references, so that there is no need to even visit your local library to checkout the references. I do this to get rid of spare time that would otherwise get me down.
It is the apathy that depresses me. I am safe, I always keep a couple a 4 foot axes in my kitchen, handy for a quick escape if required. At present, I am too depressed to choose which axe to cut myself to pieces with.
To get through these ethical quagmires, we should clarify our values, communicate them clearly and honestly and work through the expenditure decisions in a manner consistent with our claimed values.
I am interested to know if other people perceive Labour’s values, the way I am coming to?
I cannot see that National’s policies are significantly different? They seem to drift in the same path.
It is personally embarrassing, as I walked wet streets to help Labour get into power, or to get National’s Muldoon out of power. Deja vu really….
I am working hard to clarify the values on which I should base my decision for this year’s poll. I am having to re-evaluate almost all issues. This will then give me the basis for looking at all of the party’s policies.
Best regards, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 2nd May 2008 @ 10:26 pm
I noted at the time the suicide prevention programme was announced that nearly all of its language was gender neutral, hiding the fact that it’s five to seven times as much a men’s issue than a women’s issue. Contrast this with domestic violence in which about a third as many men as women are killed by their partners and the gap appears to be smaller in respect of lesser violence, but nearly all commentary is gender specific implying that it’s only a problem suffered by women and caused by men.
The actual inititives in the suicide prevention programme will no doubt reflect the same denial of the extent to which it’s mainly a men’s issue. This will limit the effectiveness of the programme, as already shown by Murray’s point that nothing is included relevant specifically to middle-aged men.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 3rd May 2008 @ 2:38 pm
Murray-
Have you considered in your analysis how Government proposals benefit POTENTIAL LABOUR VOTERS?
You may be making the mistake of assuming motives of PUBLIC GOOD to these government proposals, a more realistic assumption might be that a Government does does what it perceives in in it’s own interests, usually in the form of attracting or securing votes.
So- In determining e.g.Health Policy, the first consideration has to be how many potential voters for this administration lives will it save, and how many voters for alternative parties can be permitted, or even assisted to die.
Comment by John Brett — Wed 7th May 2008 @ 7:27 pm
I discussed suicide with Pete Hodgeson when he was the minister of health.He said he knew what he was talking about and that the suicide rate in NZ had gone down.He refused to admit that the suicide rate in middle aged men had in fact increased.Yet statistics tell a different story.
Comment by rosie — Wed 7th May 2008 @ 10:27 pm
John,
you are right, in your intuitive paranoia. (Only the paranoids really know what is going on.)
I wasn’t fully explicit, that I was trying to make overt, issues/values that may have been left covert (behind the eyes), when the programme was announced by the Government.
I was only performing a technical analysis, as to whether the expenditure on the vaccination programme was within the norms of what our society as a whole is prepared to pay for life saving measures. (It is well within these norms, if I remember correctly, Transit spends to a $2,000,000 limit and this is based on a series of surveys that goes back over at least 40 years.)
When there is suspicion about motives and values, overt and covert, it is appropriate to check on whether measures have been approved strictly in line with the cost/benefit:
1. other similar life saving measures that could have been implemented and met the $2,000,000 limit, have not been implemented.
2. have measures been implemented, at a cost of more than $2,000,000, that perhaps “should” not have been implemented.
The suspicious among us might point to herceptin funding, as an example of measures costing more than $2,000,000 per life saved. I don’t know the details here, so I am only guessing that it doesn’t meet the $2,000,000 criteria?
I have suggested that another measure that might save about 20 to 30 lives per year, through suicide, would be to require the familycaught to stop committing deliberate breaches of natural justice and to follow the present legislation. The cost to make this change would probably be under $20,000 ie $1,000 per child or man whose life was saved. (I appreciate that my analysis for this is not generally accepted. If anyone is interested to see my justification for this, I can EMAIL this doc to them.)
Another useful method of analysis, is timing, has the herpes virus vaccination programme announcement been timed to allign with electoral advantages for Labour?
Conversely, could the announcement have been made earlier, but was delayed to gain political advantage.
It appears to me, that Labour made the announcement, as soon as the cost benefit met appropriate limits and the necessary negotiations with drug supply companies had been completed.
Conclusion:
The Herpes vaccine announcement was made as soon as the proper criteria were complied with, even though the announcement would have given Labour more electoral advantage if it had been delayed to say 3 months before the election.
However, other measures are available which would save men’s and children’s lives, at lower cost. Labour appears to be turning a blind eye to these available options.
It appears to me worthwhile, that men should advocate for anti suicide measures for young men and also for middle aged men.
Although cost is a barrier to authorising expenditure on anti suicide emasures for men and children, the main barrier appears to be the present Government’s ideology.
The amounts of expenditure are not great at all, it is well within the resources of men’s groups to fund anti suicide measures, with some limited degree of success. I like to believe that Men’s Centre (and I hope UoF too) are already doing this.
Another barrier to reducing men’s and children’s suicides is the attitudes of many of the “judges”. The best solution for the “judges” attitudes, is to remove the existing “judges” from office and appoint people with appropriate training and who meet values and integrity standards. This will require legislation to implement. The legislation has constitutional significance, thus should only be passed into law, if approved by say 70+% of MPs in Parliament. (This is in contrast with Labour, who wiped access to Privy Council on a 1 vote majority!)
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 7th May 2008 @ 11:47 pm
Suicide is one of the saddest saddest things.Especially when provoked by the scum legal workers and judges of the family caught.Has any thought been given to a list of fathers broken by this corrupt and dishonest system.Ho do these people sleep??
Now I am living outside New Zealand and looking at its petty caught system and relationship smashing processes with an increasing disbeliving eye I feel increasingly sorry for the fathers (and some mothers) who have taken it seriously and placed their faith in it.
This destruction of faith and the personal feeling of rejection is I believe the basis for the suicide.I urge people considering in the family caught circus first not to.If you really must then do not take it seriously and alwaqys remember to say thank you for everything you have and I love you to yourself at least twice a day
Comment by whanga — Thu 8th May 2008 @ 1:17 am
Jim Anderton and I have both lost daughters to suicide and our lives have never been the same since,but that’s where our similarities end.
I admire the man in his quest for reducing the suicide rate in this country, but I don’t believe that the suicide prevention programme is targeting those who are most at risk.The middle aged men.
You’ve just got to read some of the stories here at Menz,some of them are heart breaking,to understand why the suicide rate is so high.
It seems like men are not permitted to have a life at all after being in a marriage or a relationship where children are involved.
It doesn’t seem to matter at all that in most cases,it is the woman who chooses to opt out of the relationship.For the lifetime that a guy is working,the IRD will make his life hell.
No wonder so many men feel like giving up.
It’s okay for men like Jim Anderton who wouldn’t even miss the $20-000 that was taken from his salary each year.The average man can count himself lucky if he is given an allowance of $100 a week to exist on.
Yet they are labelled the ‘dead beat’ dads.
While some of the mums who don’t declare their earnings from prostitution are considered ’saints’
Comment by rosie — Thu 8th May 2008 @ 9:51 pm