Debate, Mjøssykehuset | When personal influence overrides the needs of society

After many years, we finally agreed to build the Mjøssykehuset in Moelv. Professional societies agree that bringing all functions together in one place provides the best professional environments and therefore the best patient care. For patients, the combination will mean, among other things, that they will not have to transfer between hospitals as is the case today. We who represent patient organizations also believe that a joint grouping is best.

So, it was a big surprise that we received a message proposing to add more activities to Elverum. This directly contradicts the recommendations of the professional environment and undermines the credibility of the entire hospital operation. what is going on?

When a prominent politician like Trygve Slagsvold Vidum deprioritizes treating patients and does not take professional advice into account, but allows his own status to guide his choices, this shows a politician who is undermining our perception of politicians as trustworthy. Unfortunately, this is not the only example of such cases, as the media has recently shown us many cases in which politicians have favored personal interests over the good of society.

Unfortunately, Mjøssykehuset has become a pawn in the prestige game for personal self-interest. The losers are the patients who still have to be transferred between hospitals.

One might think that in 2023 societal interests would be stronger than private personal interests, but political willpower and implementation capacity suffered serious wounds when senior politicians were unable to prioritize the best societal solutions. Political flatness and apathy are undermining the capacity and credibility of Norwegian politics. The more examples are brought to the table, the more clear patterns are drawn of self-interest overriding societal needs. Selfishness is a trait that some people can acquire in the absence of boundaries and guidance from their leaders, and is something being worked on in Parliament. Passenger housing, travel bills, exclusion, and stock trading could serve as some obvious examples.

When the interests of individuals trump professional environments and user needs, it reminds us of operations from countries with which we do not want to compare ourselves.

Most people do so well in this country that politicians can be indifferent, and in some cases overstep their authority, and attract attention for their own gain. Personality marks, as long as they are in place, are an expression of selfishness and self-development. This is not what a functional society needs.

Selfishness is a basic characteristic and an ethical doctrine that emphasizes the validity of acting in a way that serves the person who acts. The opposite of selfishness is altruism (self-sacrifice), which claims that it is right to act in a way that serves others (society). Altruism means that one should serve others at the expense of oneself. This is the most widespread ethical view, and practically all thinkers after the heyday of philosophy in ancient Greece defended positions that can be said to be altruistic to a greater or lesser extent; Only a few have declared that they are not altruistic. But we are now witnessing a practice where some politicians allow themselves to be tempted by the temptations of selfishness.

Fortunately, the vast majority of our politicians are honorable and understand their role, but recent media cases show that for some, ethics and the moral compass are on the move. We need politicians to build society. In the upcoming elections, those who practice a different form of selfish politics should not get your vote. We are the voters who decide who stands upright and therefore deserves to make decisions for the good of society.