Efficiency in Government Policy and the Limits of Debate

The UK appears to be moving toward legalizing assisted dying, following a successful vote in the Commons. However, rather than adopting a policy modeled on the experience of other countries, we are likely to spend years locked in debate.

This hesitation reflects a broader tendency among politicians to avoid policy changes that could have negative outcomes, even when the current status quo causes more harm. It mirrors the psychological dilemma of the trolley problem, where people are reluctant to pull the lever to divert a train—even if doing so would save more lives—because the act of intervention feels morally fraught.

Debate, while essential, has its limits. Prolonged discussion can often lead to circular arguments and indecision. It is easy to imagine potential positive or negative consequences of a policy change, but these projections rarely align perfectly with real-world outcomes. Instead of endless deliberation, governments could adopt trial policies or implement sunset clauses to periodically reassess their effectiveness. This approach would allow for adjustment and improvement based on actual results.

The cost of prolonged debate extends beyond the immediate issue. Time spent deliberating one policy comes at the expense of addressing other pressing matters, and delays in decision-making postpone any potential benefits of change. In this sense, government decision-making could learn from competitive industries, like car manufacturing. A car company that lags behind its competitors in adopting new designs and technologies risks falling behind entirely. In policymaking, as in business, perfection can become the enemy of progress.