Wasting Money On Women

 

Perhaps it's the liberal in me speaking, but I'm convinced that we waste too much money on “Women's Health.”

Yes. I know that sounds perverse. And yes, I know that it sounds more like sexism than liberalism, but that's not the case. You're feeling, not thinking. The usual message is that women have been ignored too long when it comes to medical research. All the medical studies have focused on men's diseases and those of women have been ignored. And even when ills are studied that affect both sexes, women are under-represented in the study populations. It doesn't matter whether I may personally agree or disagree with the premises, the conclusion represents emotionalism, not rationality. It is certainly not the message of liberal theology.ⁱ

But what does liberalism teach? Wikipedia (a sometimes reliable source) defines it as “the belief in the importance of individual liberty and equal rights.” And “Classical Liberalism” was “committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.”

Well, we can dispense with the latter statement. No one believes in limited government or free markets anymore. Certainly not liberals. But the idea of equal rights remains a hallmark of that philosophy. In addition, it is the goal of liberals to help the poor and needy, the underdogs, to achieve that equality. Money should be spent on programs that bring equality, and that's the point.

Mortality rates are higher among males than females in almost all species, including humans, according to a study completed for the Society of Actuaries in Schaumburg, Illinois.

The study cited (which is not unique, but indicative of facts worldwide) tells us that this has been the case at least since the 1300s. It is even true of fetuses. And another study tells us that a white girl born in 2005 has a life expectancy of 80.8 years while a white boy can anticipate only 75.7 years. The difference is even greater for African-Americans.

Interesting, but diseases like breast cancer – “women's diseases” – are the real scourges and we have ignored them for too long. Well that's the mantra. But men can get breast cancer too, and we haven't ignored it, anyway. The American Cancer Society, which funds much of the research into breast cancer, was founded in 1913 by men, and men head it today. And breast cancer – which affected 119.3 women per 100,000ⁱⁱ – isn't nearly as frequent as prostate cancer (which never affects women) whose incidence the same year (2006) was 152.6 per 100,000.

And the same is true of other diseases. For the most part men are more frequently affected than women and, consequently, die younger. Look around any senior citizens' center and you'll find a shortage of men. So they're at a premium. Lengthening their lives will not only benefit them, but the women who are looking for them.

The bottom line is that men are not equal to women in length or quality of life. Our liberal values, therefore, dictate that preference should be given to them when funds are disbursed for health care. To achieve equality, therefore, and to live up to a true liberal philosophy, less publicⁱⁱⁱ health care funding should be given to “Women's Health,” and more to men's.

Not the teaching of the times or the “correct” point of view? Sorry about that.

Next episode: “The Best And The Brightest” – The failure of democracy.

i    For too many, liberalism (or conservatism for that matter) is a knee-jerk reaction – a set of beliefs – rather than a considered and well thought-out philosophy. It commands the same unswerving loyalty as a religion.

ii     CDC (US Centers for Disease Control) figures.

iii  Private funds, of course, should go wherever the donors want. Public funds, though – taxpayers' money – should be used in a manner that will contribute to equality. That's what America is all about.