• spud@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    In the vein of encouraging smoking as it costs the NHS for associated diseases earlier on, but kills the patients before the really expensive care for Alzheimers etc is required, could you argue that IVF saves money in the long run by providing a child to care for those who would otherwise require extensive state support in their old age?

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      Encouraging smoking to save money is an unethical thought experiment not actual policy. Smoking is not guaranteed to kill and due to modern treatments it is a lot more survivable now. This means it will be significantly more expensive if people smoke. Quality of life is also significantly reduced along with productivity.

      Kids are not required by law to take care of their parents so you can’t count on that. Besides, most of the really high costs are from living in a care facility. Most people cannot provide this level of care.

      • spud@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        16 hours ago

        OK that’s a non-starter. How then do we make our proposal for self-funding provision of IVF on the NHS? What if they reserve a modest quantity of spare stem cells for the production of veal?

        • Doomsider@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Ethical consumption? That is a great idea for the elite. I think you may have just got a startup funded!

          • spud@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            15 hours ago

            Sweet. Wes, it’s funding time, bell up Pete Thiel and get it implemented asap