As the top five couples in Hot 89.9’s Win a Baby contest wept and hugged at the news they’d all receive the prize of three fertility treatments, ethical finger-waggers across the country cried: “Yuck!”
Apparently, the beaming winners weren’t aware that they were pawns in a marketing gimmick, or that their prize was an insult to the sanctity of life, as National Post columnist Andrew Lovesey and other critics of the contest have argued.
These nitpickers are mostly peeved that the radio station has profited from the publicity, and that it required contestants to be available for promotions.
But isn’t it a bit naive to expect a business to pony up $35,000 in treatments per couple for nothing in return? Can’t the benefit flow both ways? And if would-be parents can’t afford the treatments, and government is unwilling to cover them, isn’t compromise worth the station footing the bill?
With resources already stretched to meet ever-growing demands for healthcare, Canadians should be embracing unconventional ways to bridge the gaps in coverage – including partnerships with the private sector – not throwing tantrums over a legal product being offered as a contest prize.
People who balk at fertility treatments being the subject of competition conveniently overlook the fact that coverage for such therapies is already a postal-code lottery in Canada.
Last year, Quebec became the first region in North America to cover the treatments. Elsewhere, Canadians have to finance the costly procedures themselves for however long it takes to conceive.
That’s not to argue that Ontario should follow Quebec’s lead.
Ironically, the promise of universal health care can only be kept by excluding services from coverage – a truly universal system would bankrupt the country.
Each year, Ontario adds five or six new cancer drugs to the list it covers, according to the Ministry of Health. Meanwhile, Quebec has hardly funded any new cancer drugs in the past five years.
And infertility isn’t a death sentence. As long as there are cancer patients struggling to access life-saving drugs, fertility treatments and other nonessential therapies should be lower priorities.
Since Ontario isn’t willing to fund fertility treatments, it’s up to individuals to decide whether scraping together the necessary funds is worth it.
Critics such as Lovesey offer cold comfort to people who are unable to do even that, questioning “if they cannot afford the treatment, can they afford to raise the resulting child?”
Yet, it’s the contest that’s unethical for giving those disadvantaged by location and finances another roll of the dice.
Win-win partnerships with the private sector can and do exist. International health organizations such as AMREF – an African health development group – are increasingly leveraging corporate infrastructure in the developing world to deliver aid to remote communities. The upshot is that patients get access to the care they need, health organizations free up funds for other projects and companies raise their public profiles.
The Win a Baby contest is a microcosm of such partnerships – hopeful couples gain access to treatments they otherwise can’t afford and the station attracts publicity for the stunt.
Of course, there’s a compromise. Contestants must participate in promotions during the competition, but a little recognition is hardly a big demand from the station. Charities publicize their top donors’ contributions for the same reason.
The real ethical red flag is when that compromise is one-sided, or could harm the person making it.
Where that’s not the case, Canadians need to be more open to exploring unconventional partnerships – anything less is chucking the baby out with the bathwater.