Should we all drive Volvos?
Most people would agree that the most important factor in choosing a car if money were no object would be safety. If we assume that a Volvo is the safest car, then logically we should all drive Volvos if possible. Of course, safety comes at a cost. So should people be able to buy cheaper but less safe cars? Most people would say that this is a matter of informed choice for the individual. What if it were pronounced that Volvos were the only car that could be bought, in order to improve road safety. Many people would be priced out of the car market. It could be argued that people don't need cars - although this policy would exclude many people from various activities. It would disproportionately hit those in rural communities, who might well consider the small increased risk from a non-Volvo car worth the benefits of car ownership.
If we decide that car ownership should be widespread, the state might decide that those who cannot afford their own car should be provided with one. In that case, the poor would receive a Volvo at massive cost to the taxpayer. This would be problematic.
Let us replace the Volvo with "safe staffing levels" in healthcare. It is difficult to argue with the desirability of safe staffing levels on the wards of our hospitals. However, just as with the Volvo analogy, safe staffing levels come at a price. Simply stating that provision of safe staffing levels is a simple matter ignores all the issues that either the NHS budget would have to be expanded massively, or some people would have to be denied healthcare. Close a ward if staffing levels fall below the minimum? Where do the patients go?
Healthcare requires more than simplistic answers. Everyone likes motherhood and apple pie, but they have failed to solve the problems of the world.
