Rehumanizing Health Economics: Questions in Need of Attention

Abstract: Like other social scientists, economists study human beings, and generally do so with a default orientation toward promoting their well-being. But what happens when we don’t all agree on whose well-being counts? This article explores how researchers weigh fetal well-being de facto in a variety of policy contexts when studying pregnancy, maternal and infant health, and abortion. One large body of work shows the negative effects of a poor fetal environment on newborns and their mothers, and the benefits of policies that support healthy pregnancy. Another considers fertility patterns more broadly, examining policy and other factors influencing fertility rates and planned vs. unplanned pregnancies. Alongside these is work on abortion, focused primarily on variation in supply-side policy factors related to abortion access that influence abortions, births, and maternal outcomes without reference to fetal outcomes. Are these literatures dissonant, or are there coherent explanations for how we identify the stakeholders in policy related to pregnancy? I argue that in each literature, there are different unspoken assumptions about whose outcomes are considered (or even measured), and that in some cases these assumptions reflect dehumanization of vulnerable humans. Building on a foundation of the Consistent Life Ethic and the Imago Dei, I suggest ways to start a conversation within our discipline to make its assumptions of value explicit and to discuss the consequences of these assumptions for the way we frame policy outcomes.