3 ms·
The state's parens patriae jurisdiction (where originally the King, as 'father of the country' and latterly the courts can take decisions on behalf of those who
by pmyteh 6y ago
The state's parens patriae jurisdiction (where originally the King, as 'father of the country' and latterly the courts can take decisions on behalf of those who cannot take care of themselves) goes back centuries - far longer than the NHS does.
And for what it's worth, these cases are basically never discussed even outside the courts in the UK on the basis of 'can we afford it?', but rather 'is it the right thing to do?'. There are financial constraints on the NHS, particularly on the provision of care for chronic conditions and expensive new drugs with positive but marginal utility, but these kinds of 'right to life' cases are not where it bites.
- daenz 6y agoI don't know enough about UK history, but was the king also expected to provide for the people? In that case, I would argue that my power dynamic argument still applies. In other words, a king that provides is seen as having more legitimacy to the people over one that doesn't, and so their decisions are more willingly accepted.
- pmyteh 6y agoArguably they were expected to provide security against external threats, but otherwise no: any social services were the responsibility of the parish in the early history of England. National poor relief laws date to the late 16th Century, but the responsibility falls locally, not from the King. This doesn't really begin to change until the early 20th Century, with the national provision of old-age pensions. Most of the sense of the national government as directly providing for the people comes post-World War 2, not before.