| Topic: | Re:Not at the expense of lives. | |
| Posted by: | Darren Halford | |
| Date/Time: | 03/01/11 01:46:00 |
| They're not dying are they? Your post said 'not at the expense of lives'. Isn't that being a bit dramatic? If you think there should be a policy of giving our taxes first and foremost to services that save lives I'd have to suggest you are opening a door onto a massive moral maze. Our taxes have artificially extended the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who wouldn't be alive if it weren't for the appliance of science funded by us and administered by the NHS. Physically disabled children who would have died pre-childbirth or in infancy are kept alive into child and adulthood because of the breakthroughs in care and medical understanding funded by the tax payer. But with every extended life comes increased medical costs. But where do we draw the line? Should we? And should healthcare always trump the less tangible things like art and leisure. My health is important to me and I consider going to the Ealing festival a positive contribution to it. It's a shame that services are being cut, but that's an inevitable consequence of the economic climate. This council wastes money on many things as does the government, but the festival is such a small part of the overall budget that generates a lot of happiness and good feeling I think it is fully justified. You could even go so far as to say that more people benefit from it than from the Albert Danes centre and the LINKS project. That might sound callous but there is some truth in the statement. I don't know what the answer is but I get the impression cutting council spending on the festival is not it. |