Saturday, August 27, 2011

Saving Lives With Money

 In the wake of the earthquake in Haiti, the charities that provided medical intervention had a problem: how could the identify which injuries and medical problems were the result of the earthquake, and which conditions were pre-existing? Since the country had (and still has) such poor facilities, lots of people in the country had curable medical conditions from before the earthquake, and thought they could get in on that charity medical care.

My question: Why does it matter why anyone needs assistance? It's not as though earthquake victims are more deserving of assistance than someone who got hit by a bus. Neither person deserved their injury, and both would be better off with intervention.

Whenever someone dies of starvation or dehydration, the problem could have been solved with money. If we're willing to save a person that was starving as a result of an earthquake, then we should be willing to help someone who simply doesn't have land good enough to grow sufficient food.

Intervention that is used to prevent starvation, disasters, or injury has a multiplicative effect; if you spend a dollar on prevention, you save many dollars in the future. Logically, as a cost saving measure, the first world should spend all the money necessary to bring the benefits of modern civilization to anywhere willing to accept it.


No comments: