Firstly, the statement is positive and so capable of being analysed objectively.
Secondly, the conflict has been partly brought about by the effects of developing medical technology - without the development of the scanner we would not have had the conflict.
Lastly, PPF analysis makes it clear that this situation reflects one of two possibilities. Either the hospital is operating on its frontier, or it is operating at some point inside its frontier. In the first case, either we have to find some way of deciding between the two efficient allocations (scanner versus children's unit) or we have to devote more resources to medical care in this hospital (shift the PPF outwards). In the second case, since the initial allocation was inefficient, there may be no need to choose between the two possibilities. If we just remove the inefficiencies we may then have enough resources to have both the scanner and the children's unit.
This may seem rather simplistic but it does relate directly to the debate about changes in the NHS. The government has tended to argue that existing allocations have been inefficient, so that it is possible to get more from existing resources. Critics of their policy have argued on the other hand that the problem is a lack of resources.
However, developing theory to analyse the problem does not make the difficult choices disappear.
