Policy born of rationality key

Whenever we see protests, especially in a small place like Wanganui, it is important to consider the silent majority and weigh the implications on them against the cries of anguish from those stomping down Victoria Ave and converging on Majestic Square like Wanganui's equivalent of the ever-classy and shrewd Occupy movement.

I am, you may have guessed, alluding to the proposed movement of some of Wanganui's maternity services to Palmerston North. Being a student, and not a medical professional or a DHB member, I'm not going to profess to know the intricate details, the practical implications and undeniable arguments related to this. I will, however, offer the view of a member of tomorrow's workforce and attempt to provide some form of a counterbalance to the largely one-sided argument which has taken place in the public sphere recently.

The first thing to consider is why the public argument has appeared so one-sided. The first reason I would identify is that there is such a clear moral high ground which makes it hard to argue in support of the movement of the maternity services. If one ever makes an argument about the limited funds central and local government face it is so easy and appealing to respond with lines such as, "you can't put a price on life," or "but why should that mean babies die?"

Of course everyone wants to minimise the number of babies who are lost and the number of mothers who have to leave Wanganui to access maternity services. But we must deal with this on a rational basis: in every single budget a price is placed on life. Every time the government spends money on education rather than healthcare, or the air force rather than policing, or even art galleries rather than more money on ensuring roads are safer, they are implicitly placing a price on life.

In terms of what will appeal to the average citizen, the more emotional lines will always receive more exposure and support, and they are the arguments which will fit on a placard, in both a physical and argumentative sense.

Perhaps my somewhat phlegmatic and impassive view on this issue is because of my youth. Perhaps it's because of a lack of emotional connection to maternity services. Sure, I was a newborn baby some 17 years ago, but admittedly this is not an issue I have had an emotional investment in since. However, I think it is important to formulate public policy based on rationality rather than emotion.

Second, I believe the argument will always tend toward opposition to the proposal at hand because the costs of keeping the maternity services are infinitely less tangible than the costs of moving them to Palmerston North. It is very easy to communicate, apprehend and empathise with travelling and staying in Palmerston during the birth of a baby, but far less easy when considering the financial cost of keeping the maternity services in Wanganui and the opportunity cost to the healthcare system in that sense.

That brings me on to the cost. People who argue that it's not an issue are either ignorant or intentionally misleading. There are paediatricians and obstetricians available, for sure, in nations across the world. Unfortunately though, the only thing that will entice them to a place like Wanganui is greater pay.

The funds would have to come from somewhere: the youth of today are the ratepayers and taxpayers (and parents) of tomorrow. The reality is that centralisation and the streamlining of all public services, including healthcare, is an inevitability for both local and central government, just as it has been for the UK, where similarly tight budgets are manifesting themselves in similarly suboptimal changes.

The final observation I would make about this particular issue is that it is a classic example of expenditure in the public sector being sticky downwards. That is to say, it's very easy to add services, and not particularly controversial to not increase the level of public services, but to reduce it always creates a disproportionate stir. If we have had something for a long time and it is taken away, it is easier to garner opposition to the reduction than it is to garner opposition to a longstanding lack of public expenditure. For example, I see no one protesting about the fact that oncology patients have to travel to Palmerston on a far more regular basis, for what I would suggest is an at least equally stressful and imposing ordeal as giving birth.

It seems irrational that we oppose the shifting of maternity services more than this, but it's because we've never had those services that we don't see councillors and citizens alike becoming as impassioned about them as they do with our maternity services.

As I said, I don't claim to know everything about the issue, but as a young person in Wanganui my somewhat dispassionate view, separated from the emotion of knowing people who have lost babies or experiencing this sort of ordeal myself, perhaps does afford me the advantage of looking at the issue through a more objective lens.

I also hope it is clear that the reasons why the DHB have proposed these changes should be educed as much as possible given the natural tendency of the media and the "everyman" towards the more emotional and easily expressed side of the argument.

James Penn is deputy head boy at Wanganui High School and was a member of the New Zealand team that competed in the World School Debating Championships.