Rights & Responsibilities

There were two recent articles on East Midland Lib Dem website and both of them addressed the question of rights (to health care) and corresponding responsibilities (for one's own actions).

One article had a very strong emotional undertone. Cornwall councillors were found saying that there were "too many disabled children" and that "disabled children should be "put down" as they were costing the council too much money". And, as the quotations were very offensive, and rightly so, the councillors tried to explain themselves: the true meaning of their comments was that the parents 'should be helped' so they can take 'responsible action' and terminate the pregnancy before the 'disabled child' is born.

The idiocy of the argument is obvious: one can be born 'healthy' and diagnosed 'disabled' after almost two years as the case of my daughter testifies; one can become disabled through injury - and how do you define 'disability' anyway? Is that anybody who 'costs the council too much money'? So bye, bye Mr. Stephen Hawking.

The idiocy of the argument is obvious, the underlying assumption perhaps not. Namely that if the community provides for the rights, the community should expect its members to behave responsibly so as not to abuse the rights.

The second article also addressed the private behaviour leading to public cost: "Three million people in the UK have now been diagnosed with diabetes which is an increase of 132,000 over the previous year. It is estimated that, by 2025, five million people will have diabetes. This will create a huge burden on the NHS". This second article did not suggest that 'obese people should be put down as they cost the NHS too much money' - perhaps there are more obese voters than disabled voters.

Both articles expose the current soul searching within the society about the 'fairness' - is it fair to distribute community support indiscriminately? Or should there be an assessment and a contribution from the claimants?

You can see the logic: if A gives money to B, A usually expects something in return - even if that something is 'good feeling' of contributing to a worthy cause as in the case of charity. Once the contribution is a 'right', once A is contributing via state (or other enforcing agency), once the perceived link between the recipient and the donor is broken, once the system is seen to be abused, the debate starts: shirkers versus strivers, allowances should be earned, opting out from the human rights charter, EU fund distributions to recent members, EU budget to the farmers for just 'having the field' - all redistribution of communal resources on all levels and in all aspect: just today (12/3/2013) there was a feature on Radio 4 that people with 'responsible lifestyle' should have 'preferential access' to stretched NHS resources. The 'good feel factor' metamorphoses to 'bad feel factor'.

Every society in the history of mankind has had means of redistributing public goods to private individuals. It has hardly been fair, though, the top creaming off the most. So we need to develop the concept of 'fairness'. 'Fair society' is central to Liberal Democrats. It is also a concept which distinguishes us from the other 'main parties': UKIP would kick out the 'undesirable' immigrants, the Tories are shamelessly supporting the 'haves', Labour is claiming to support the 'have-nots'. And we, as a party, have to stand up in the debate and stake our ground. We should be able, if need be, to establish a 'Human Rights And Responsibility Charter' - so the 'responsibility' for NOT putting down your disabled child is not even discussed.

J George Smid - The balance of 'rights & responsibilities' formed a part of his MEP candidate manifesto.