One example I can think of would be the efforts to eradicate childhood disease through widespread vaccination campaigns. However I wasn't defending the position of the linked piece's original author, simply pointing out that identifying he is appealing to emotion doesn't make his position a fallacy.

I happen to not agree with Wells' suggestion for making it clear that economic costs are entangled with human costs through this particular Swiftian tongue-in-cheek measurement change, but agree with him thematically that the positivism of modern economic practice uses semantics and misdirection to obscure human suffering and moral breaches.