Philosophy, Morality & Society - Major essay

I'm having one hell of a time writing this last essay for Philosophy, Morality & Society and it is not just the crappy word count. Well, the word count is pretty limiting; with only 1500 words I'm not sure how anyone can do justice to any question! My essay question is to describe how Professor Peter Singer argues that the interests of animals should be given equal consideration with the interests of Human beings and to outline whether I think that there is a moral divide between human and non-human animals. I think that there isn't any morally significant difference but how am I supposed to answer this question in only 1500 words!

Secondly, I received a telephone call from Centerlink, Australia's state welfare agency, the other day and I was advised that I am being cut off my meager pension. The reason, basically, is because of a loophole. I'm on disability pension (DSP) and, it seems, that to be eligible for DSP the candidate doesn't only need a debilitating medical condition but that condition needs to be being currently treated and stabalised.

Now this seems adequate on the surface but in my case I seem to slip through the cracks. Let me explain. I have a debilitating back condition. I usually describe it as a broken back but no vertebrae are in fact damaged. I have a perforated disk. The fluid in this disk has since drained out and I've been left with a mass of scar tissue surrounding the disk. The problem with this is that the disk itself has no nerves, and for good reason. If the disk had nerves every time you moved you would aggravate those nerves as each vertebrae slid around. Scar tissue has nerves so every time I move my spine I get quite severe pain. Surgery is out as the disks above and below are showing signs of weakness and were surgery to be performed the pressure on these disks would increase exponentially and hence increase the risk of them deteriorating further.

Now, on the surface, this would seem like a pretty good case for DSP but this is where the loophole comes into question. The criteria states that the condition needs to be stabalised and being currently treated. I've had masses of treatment and the outcome was, basically, that there is nothing that can be done other than some physio to slightly increase my mobility. Since then I have received no treatment, because none is available, and my condition isn't stabalised, it's in fact getting worse, because of there being no treatment available.

So because there is no treatment available for this condition I am not entitled to DSP. Now this seems absolutely absurd to me. My only option is to seek out the same, expensive, treatment that I've already had so I can reapply for DSP. It seems absolutely absurd that people with treatable conditions are eligible for DSP but people with medical conditions of which there is no available treatment are not entitled to DSP. In my opinion I think that this should be reversed if anything. What a way to clog up our health system; have possibly thousands of people with un-treatable medical conditions receive treatment that will do nothing just so they can get the pension that they need because they have limited-to-no access to work.

So this is my dilemma this week. I have this essay to complete but I'm also battling state bureaucracy and back to receiving daily treatment that I not only don't need but have to take time out of studying to travel to.

Bloody Centerlink. Your admin really need to go and read some Rawls.