Recently a new government policy has gained popularity in several districts in India. Officials in central Madhya Pradesh state’s Shivpuri district, a bandit infested region, has adopted the policy that attempts to increase vasectomy rates by offering to fast-track gun license applications—essentially asking men to exchange their fertility for guns. Officials view the policy as part of their new plan to “encourage people to have smaller families to ease poverty.” Last year officials offered a financial reward of 1,100 rupees ($27.5) in exchange for undergoing a vasectomy; eight men opted to undergo the procedure. Since the institution of this new policy, over 150 men have undergone a vasectomy, and another 100 are expected by the beginning of April. (AFP, 1).
Immediately, the incentive offered by officials presents multiple ethical issues. What happened to informed consent without undue duress? For men in the region, being licensed to carry a gun is equivalent to being given further power to protect their families from the large number of bandits that inhabit the region, the majority of which carry unlicensed weapons. So, from a theoretical ethics point of view, clearly the incentive prevents the patients from making an informed consent; but what about the perspective of practical ethics? Increased vasectomy rates will aid in controlling the over-population problem, and granting locals the ability to legally hold firearms will help them protect their families from harm. But is it really such a win-win situation, or are there further implications?
(Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080318/hl_afp/healthindiapopulationfamilyplanningguns_080318191739;_ylt=Auff5sE0i0RHO_LSdvQKhJOs0NUE)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think it is fair to say that most people in this world have relatively strong moral compasses. Everyone has done immoral things in their lives, both on purpose and unknowingly, but we can still distinguish between what is right and wrong and what is necessary and frivolous. Sometimes people just need a push in the right direction. Overpopulation is obviously a huge issue in India and so is the high incidence of bandit attacks in the Shivpuri district in India. Therefore, both methods to reduce family size and finding an effective means of protecting one’s family are important.
Now ask yourself, is it truly wrong to offer people an incentive to do things that they should probably be doing otherwise? Think of donating blood. I participate in the American Red Cross group on campus through the SVC and we gave out free coffee mugs during our fall blood drive to encourage people to sign up. Donating blood is easy and relatively painless and is really important given current blood shortages, yet we gave people an extra reward beyond the feeling of helping the community etc. they should have otherwise. Could anyone argue that that is wrong, or coercive? Now, clearly, getting a vasectomy is more dangerous than donating blood, but it is a good way to stem overpopulation in India and other countries.
I’m sure that this isn’t true in all cases, but I would assume that the reason that many poor families end up with far more children than they can afford to take care of is that they either don’t have access to contraception or don’t believe in using it (or abortion) because of religious beliefs, but they like having sex too much to give it up. Having a vasectomy procedure would completely circumvent all of those issues. The parents can engage in sexual intercourse as frequently as they wish without using contraception and avoid the risk of unwanted pregnancies. Plus, in this case, the father figures in each family group can further promote the well being of his family by being able to afford to feed all of them as well as protecting them from bandit attacks because of the possession of a firearm. Doesn’t that seem like a good idea?
Post a Comment