Suppose (heaven forbid) a close relative has cancer, and thereâs a new therapy which fractionally improves survival. The NHS doesnât provide it on cost-effectiveness grounds. If you look around and see the NHS often provides treatment it previously ruled out if enough public sympathy can be aroused, you might be inclined try to do the same. If instead you see it is pretty steadfast (âWe base our allocation on ethical principles, and only change this when we find weâve made a mistake in applying themâ), you might not beâor at least change your strategy to show the decision the NHS has made for your relative is unjust rather than unpopular.
None of this requires you to be acting in bad faith looking for ways of extorting the governmentâyouâre just trying to do everything you can for a loved one (the motivation for pharmaceutical companies that sponsor patient advocacy groups may be less unalloyed). Yet (ideally) the government wants to encourage protest that highlights a policy mistake, and discourage those for when it has done the right thing for its population, but is against the interests of a powerful/âphotogenic/âpopular constituency. âCaving inâ to the latter type pushes in the wrong direction.
(That said, back in EA-land, I think a lot things that are âPR risksâ for EA look bad because they are bad (e.g. in fact mistaken, morally abhorrent, etc.), and so although PR considerations arenât sufficient to want to discourage something, they can further augment concern.)
I think I get the idea:
Suppose (heaven forbid) a close relative has cancer, and thereâs a new therapy which fractionally improves survival. The NHS doesnât provide it on cost-effectiveness grounds. If you look around and see the NHS often provides treatment it previously ruled out if enough public sympathy can be aroused, you might be inclined try to do the same. If instead you see it is pretty steadfast (âWe base our allocation on ethical principles, and only change this when we find weâve made a mistake in applying themâ), you might not beâor at least change your strategy to show the decision the NHS has made for your relative is unjust rather than unpopular.
None of this requires you to be acting in bad faith looking for ways of extorting the governmentâyouâre just trying to do everything you can for a loved one (the motivation for pharmaceutical companies that sponsor patient advocacy groups may be less unalloyed). Yet (ideally) the government wants to encourage protest that highlights a policy mistake, and discourage those for when it has done the right thing for its population, but is against the interests of a powerful/âphotogenic/âpopular constituency. âCaving inâ to the latter type pushes in the wrong direction.
(That said, back in EA-land, I think a lot things that are âPR risksâ for EA look bad because they are bad (e.g. in fact mistaken, morally abhorrent, etc.), and so although PR considerations arenât sufficient to want to discourage something, they can further augment concern.)
Thank you!