You’ve highlighted an issue I agree with- that this is something of a grey area where one’s personal position on complex moral issues can make a big difference to how effective you think this problem area might be.
I am not clear from your explanation on whether health impacts are talking about the effect on the mother or the effect on the stillborn child.
In the article, I’m defining the health impacts of a stillbirth as the years of health, or healthy life, lost to the child who is stillborn- this, as you point out, is very hard to define. Any health impacts on the mother (not related to economic or wellbeing impacts) were not described particularly fully in the readings I found, although there may be more research that I haven’t seen; I suspect they would be hard to entangle from the health problems which may have contributed to, rather than caused, a stillbirth.
It seems to me that you have to accept one of these or the other.
If I was smarter, I’d have a better impression on where I fell on this issue. What I hope to point out in the article is that taking either position to an extreme results in a position that clashes with my, and I suspect many people’s, moral intuition. Probably further thought on this is required by people who have more experience with time discounting/​health economics/​actuarial sciences than me.
If you are considering the effect on the stillborn child, it seems that you should consider increasing reproduction as approximately as good as decreasing stillbirths.
Presumably, some people do think this. I think for me to have a strong position on it I’d have to have strong positions on other, more fundamental moral questions that I haven’t come to good answers for.
Hi Michael. Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
You’ve highlighted an issue I agree with- that this is something of a grey area where one’s personal position on complex moral issues can make a big difference to how effective you think this problem area might be.
In the article, I’m defining the health impacts of a stillbirth as the years of health, or healthy life, lost to the child who is stillborn- this, as you point out, is very hard to define. Any health impacts on the mother (not related to economic or wellbeing impacts) were not described particularly fully in the readings I found, although there may be more research that I haven’t seen; I suspect they would be hard to entangle from the health problems which may have contributed to, rather than caused, a stillbirth.
If I was smarter, I’d have a better impression on where I fell on this issue. What I hope to point out in the article is that taking either position to an extreme results in a position that clashes with my, and I suspect many people’s, moral intuition. Probably further thought on this is required by people who have more experience with time discounting/​health economics/​actuarial sciences than me.
Presumably, some people do think this. I think for me to have a strong position on it I’d have to have strong positions on other, more fundamental moral questions that I haven’t come to good answers for.