Opinion: An NHS ‘pecking order’ wouldn’t help farmers
© Tim Scrivener The most recent series of This Farming Life featured a farmer who was waiting for hip replacement surgery.
He was waiting at the start of the series and still waiting at the end, although with an indication that he “might” get the operation before Christmas.
See also: Opinion – let’s hope there are farms left for vets to visit
About the author
I hope he did, and is recovering well, because although he was stoically carrying on he was clearly struggling with farm work and needed that operation sooner rather than later.
Degenerating joints only get worse, and the better condition you are in when you have surgery, the quicker and more easily you recover.
I know how dismal it is to be hampered by an arthritic hip because, by the time this article appears, I should have had my second hip replacement.
The first one has been marvellous so I am hoping the outcome is as good this time.
I would hate to be left untreated until I could barely walk or the joint might collapse at any time.
My ears therefore pricked up when I caught Radio 4’s Moral Maze on a journey back from my partner’s farm.
The topic was “What is the ethical purpose of the NHS?”.
The first speaker gave a hypothetical example of two men needing hip replacements.
“Norman” lives in a deprived area, is poor, hasn’t looked after his health and has left it late to see a doctor.
“William” is an affluent solicitor with a healthy lifestyle who has engaged with the NHS at an early stage regarding his arthritic hip.
The speaker was firmly of the view that Norman should go to the front of the queue because his circumstances make him more deserving.
Perhaps I missed some of the nuance because I was driving, but I think the argument was that this would be impeccably ethical because the surgery would not merely be replacing a worn-out joint, it would also in some mysterious way alleviate the general unsatisfactoriness of Norman’s existence.
This is dangerous nonsense. If treatment is given as reward for moral worth, or in an attempt to ameliorate the non-medical aspects of someone’s life, does that mean it will be withheld as a punishment for a lifestyle not deemed sufficiently meritorious?
How would farmers fare if there were an ethical pecking order for elective surgery?
Where would that leave people who wreck their joints with marathon running or rugby?
Lawyers being widely despised, William is obviously doomed to languish at the back of the queue, but in any case his affluence will probably mean he gives up on the NHS and gets his operation done privately.
However, it did not appear to have occurred to the do-gooder on Moral Maze that the Normans of this world might not be in any hurry to be repaired and thrust back into the job market.
In the absence of an urgent need to feed his cattle or harvest his wheat, Norman may find sitting on the sofa watching daytime television, while receiving sick pay or benefits, a more attractive option than getting off his backside to go to a menial and badly paid job.
How would farmers fare if there were an ethical pecking order for elective surgery?
Well, they live in the countryside and aren’t “deprived” like Norman, so they’d be well down the list.
Unless they want a very long wait indeed, I’d advise them to start looking poorer and stop buying those shiny new tractors.