Dignitas

Posted by on

The founder of the Swiss physician-assisted suicide organisation Dignitas went on trial last Friday, on charges of profiteering and exploiting patients’ suffering for his own benefit. In Switzerland, providing assisted suicide services is legal as long as it is not done for “self-serving” motives. The case against Ludwig Minelli concerns the assisted suicide of an 80-year-old German woman who had left Dignitas 100,000 Swiss francs in her will. The woman was not terminally ill, and three Swiss doctors declined to help her die, before Minelli – a qualified lawyer – found a fourth. He is also accused of overcharging two other German women: a mother and her daughter, they had paid about 11,000 Swiss francs each, which is approximately twice the going rate. (The Week)

Everywhere you look you find people cheating! For some reason I imagined the Swiss to have more probity than others, and the doctors who helped those sincerely wishing to die I imagined to be full of the milk of human kindness (not, regrettably, available in your local supermarket). Instead, it appears that even the activities of Dignitas are alledgedly soiled by human greed and the exploitation of the old and weak. The increased acceptance of elective death has increased revenue for the service and has thus drawn the attention of the dishonest and the profiteers.

Given proper legal safeguards from just the type of story above, I support the right of all people to die in a civilised and way if they wish to be free of pain and misery. Our lives are our lives. They are the one thing uniquely ours, whether one is rich or poor. No priest or other busybody has the moral right to intervene, least of all jet-setting pastors. Unfortunately, this incident empowers the “sanctity of life at all costs” message of opponents of elective death, which is a shame, because the idea is legal in so few places and ought to be more generally available.

The kindness paradox: why be generous?

Posted by on

Humans are one of the rare animals to be altruistic. An ancient form of giving holds secrets about why we help one another without any promise of reward. In the Maasai tradition known as osotua – literally, umbilical cord – anyone in need can request aid from their network of friends. Anyone who is asked is obliged to help, often by giving livestock, as long as it doesn’t jeopardise their own survival. No one expects a recipient to repay the gift, and no one keeps track of how often a person asks or gives.

Forms of this practice exist all over the world. For instance, Fijians and Tanzanian slum dwellers all pitch in to help neighbours in need, with no expectation of being paid back. Even the Ik of Uganda, whom one anthropologist once vilified as the least generous people in the world, do it.

This generosity is driven by the unpredictable crisis. It persists because it helps to manage risk, which pays off for everyone in the long run. Even the best-prepared family can fall prey to catastrophe, such as a sudden illness. Disasters cannot be prevented, so need-based giving may have emerged as a proto-insurance policy. If you don’t help others they may not survive, and thus may not be around to help you. They work best when risks are “asynchronous” – when hardship is likely to strike one family and spare their neighbours.

What prevents cheating? The Maasai are most concerned with livestock, which are hard to hide. Furthermore, osotua requests tend to be made in public, so everyone knows who has asked and given – or refused to give. In other cultures reputation is the key. Are you generous, are you just a taker? If you are known as the latter, forget it.

In the Western culture people donate to charities (to people they don’t know personally) because they know there is a need, whereas people living in smaller-scale societies tend to direct their generosity towards people they know.

It is possible that the social upheavals that accompany climate change and sea-level rise could overwhelm conventional insurance and social-assistance programmes. If that happens, it is comforting to know that we can count on our neighbours for help. The number of good causes is bewildering, but if you care about your fellow men you give what you can. This is in the spirit of Epicurus and human decency. My personal favourite is Doctors Without Borders. (based on an article, heavily edited, by Bob Holmes, New Scientist).

Baby milk

Posted by on

The milk formula business is worth more than $45 billion globally, and projected to increase by over 50% by 2020 owing to rapid expansion in Asia.

The report* by Changing Markets Foundation reviewed more than 400 infant milks for babies less than one year old made by Nestlé, Danone, Mead Johnson Nutrition, and Abbott. It concluded that product differentiation is not science-based, but instead informed by research into consumer preferences, and guided by a desire to increase manufacturers’ market share and profits. In other words: it’s pure greed.

Breast milk substitutes are legitimate products for hildren who are not breastfed for whatever reason, but there is no excuse for brands like Nestlé to use manipulative marketing to exploit the vulnerability of sleep-deprived and cash-strapped parents.

Product differentiation is deliberately designed to appeal to the tastes and lifestyle preferences of parents, or prevailing fears and fads. Manufacturers including Nestlé then package their products in ‘premium’ ranges and charge exorbitant prices for what should be an uncomplicated and affordable commodity.

Decades of tireless campaigning by citizens groups, churches, and progressive politicians have led to international standards controlling infant formula ingredients and marketing. Stricter government regulation and enforcement is still needed, but is unlikely, given the free rein given to companies under the current administration. Only public pressure on brands can stop them.

One can see the same thing happening, only worse, in the pharmaceutical industry and many others. In a hyper capitalist world one has to expect profiteering, which is why we have Government to restrain the worst cheats and try to establish a level playing field, fining the wrong-doers enough to make them squeel and toe the line. There are crowds of people who say they want liberty and freedom from Big Government, which is fine as long as all they do is talk. But watch the self same people protest if they are the target of fraudsters and conmen themselves. Hypocrites! Sensible people can grumble but support rules made for the benefit of the whole nation. Competition should be lively but fair.
* “Milking It: How milk formula companies are putting profits before science”

The US: 50 years on and it seems the best intentions have come to nought

Posted by on

In 1968 the Kerner Commission recommended “massive and sustained investment in jobs and education to reduce black poverty , inequality and racial injustice”.

Now, 50 years later, public schools have been re-segregated, the gap between the teaching quality for rich and poor is among the highest in the world. Schools in the Northeast are the most segregated, and Americans living in extreme poverty (less than half the poverty threshold) has increased since the 1970s. Overall poverty itself remains the same today as it was 50 years ago. The total number of poor people has increased from over 25 million to over 40 million, more than the population of California. The top 1% receive 52% of all new income. Rich people are getting a better education, are healthier, live longer and are politically more powerful. Among a score of statistics too long to enumerate, black people have fallen even further behind. Their incarceration rate has risen 266% (the white figure is 248%)). In 1968 there were about 200,000 people behind bars, now there are 1.4 million, even though the murder rate has declined 35%. (NYT, March1,2018).

Is this something followers of Epicurus can comfortably live with? I don’t think so! But if this is the case, what can we actually do about it? The government is in the pockets of the rich and special interests, political constituencies are gerrymandered and the Supreme Court, which betrayed the country by allowing the free reign of money in politics, is about to become more reactionary as those with hearts retire or die. America will not be “great again” anytime soon. Given this scenario, to eschew politics is to tacitly submit to vulgar extremism, loss of rights and freedoms, to poverty for the majority, and possibly dnsuing violence. Explain, please, why I am wrong!

Why virtually everyone gets Italian politics wrong

Posted by on

Italy held a general election on 4 March. After weeks of deliberation, a government was formed, between the hard-right Lega Party and the populist Five Star Movement. But governing has been fraught. The ideological divisions are the coalition make forming a coherent policy platform challenging. Many of the policies, such as harsh restrictions on immigration, increasing spending on pensions, or lowering taxes, are unrealistic. Most absurd is the coalition’s position towards the EU, which is very much a have your cake and eat it approach. They love the free trade and subsidies of the EU. But they resent having to pay for it all. They demand wealthier European nations subsidise them to a greater extent than they already do. Such parochialism is quite rightly condemned by other EU nations, even if they cannot explicitly say so for fear of incurring the wrath of the Italian people.

In Britain, there are two standard responses to the new Italian government, and both are wrong. The first is the liberal-left response, which proclaims that the rise of Italian populism is due to EU-imposed neoliberalism and austerity. This is wrong for two reasons. The first is that Italian government spending is high, pensions are generous, infrastructure is good, and the debt to GDP ratio is 130%. With a rapidly ageing population and a policy averse to immigration, Italy has no choice but to tighten its belt. Secondly, the Lega Party won the most votes in the North, the wealthier part of the country. Were austerity to blame for anti-immigration sentiment, Lega would have done better in the South.

The other response to Italian politics comes from the Eurosceptic Right, which portrays the election results as a grave threat to the EU’s existence. Italy shows the EU is dysfunctional and riddled by divisions, vindicating Brexit and dooming European integration. This view is also wrong. Italian politics has long played to a populist tune. Politicians of both the left and right have promised the impossible. They praise the benefits of EU membership- mainly access to the world’s biggest market and somewhat generous subsidies. But they insist Italy is exempt from the more liberal aspects of the EU, such as an aversion to state monopolies shutting out foreign competition, or a generous policy towards refugees. On the Euro, Italy’s establishment is even more contradictory. They praise the benefits of belonging to a strong, stable currency with low inflation, low interest rates and the ability to use it in other Euro countries. But they pretend the need to maintain fiscal discipline as a Euro member doesn’t exist. None of this is new. The EU is no more threatened now than it ever has been. Ultimately, the problem is not the EU, which simply seeks to create the level playing field the Eurosceptic Right claims to believe in. The problem is with Italy’s internal politics: it’s dysfunctionality, corruption, and unrealistic expectations. Berlusconi, the leader of the centre-right Forza Italia, is just as much a populist and an anti-immigration fear mongerer as Salvini or anyone in Lega.

The solution to Italy’s political woes is not to indulge in sensationalist talk about the end of the EU. There should be a robust response to the opportunistic critiques of both the left and right. The EU cannot solve Italy’s problems. Rather, what is needed is honesty. Italy’s politicians should be frank about both the benefits and drawbacks of Euro membership. If the Italian people wish to leave the Euro, then everyone should respect that. But the Euro isn’t the main culprit of Italian discontent. The corrupt and sleazy nature of Italian politics, demographic decline, and an unsustainable social insurance system are all far more significant. Only an Italian willing to tell their people the hard truths and make the hard choices can save their country.