How much is a human life worth?

[Kale100]

I apologize about the clickbaity title, but it is accurate to the subject. So anyways...

I worked with a fella who had a 3 year old child with severe health issues. The child could not see, talk, barely move (not enough to even roll over), nor eat or breathe without machines. The doctors said this child will never leave the hospital and his condition will never substantially improve. Since this takes place in the U.S.A. which has medicaid with (now?) unlimited lifetime benefit, the child has incurred 5 million dollars worth of medical bills over his short life.

To me there is quite an ethical dilemma in this situation, that is to put (crudely) 'how much is a human life worth in dollars?' If it takes $5 to save someone's life, no questions asked we should do it, but what if it was 5 trillion? Resources are limited, such is the universe, and if immense resource goes to saving that one life, that means it would have to be redirected from other things which could save countless more lives (medical research, addiction treatment, agricultural science, etc.). If you have 5 million dollars and the choice to use it to save 1 life or lift 100 people out of poverty, which do you do? Which should we collectively as a society do? As medical science improves, cases like this will undoubtedly become more and more common, so it's something that begs planning in accordance towards.

What do folks here think about the issue? Interested in hearing from both secular and Christian perspectives.

 

[Yttrium]

I think we shouldn't try to make any firm rules about it. Situations are going to vary wildly. People on the scene should respond as their consciences dictate with the resources available.

 

[Bradskii]

I apologize about the clickbaity title, but it is accurate to the subject. So anyways...

I worked with a fella who had a 3 year old child with severe health issues. The child could not see, talk, barely move (not enough to even roll over), nor eat or breathe without machines. The doctors said this child will never leave the hospital and his condition will never substantially improve. Since this takes place in the U.S.A. which has medicaid with (now?) unlimited lifetime benefit, the child has incurred 5 million dollars worth of medical bills over his short life.

To me there is quite an ethical dilemma in this situation, that is to put (crudely) 'how much is a human life worth in dollars?' If it takes $5 to save someone's life, no questions asked we should do it, but what if it was 5 trillion? Resources are limited, such is the universe, and if immense resource goes to saving that one life, that means it would have to be redirected from other things which could save countless more lives (medical research, addiction treatment, agricultural science, etc.). If you have 5 million dollars and the choice to use it to save 1 life or lift 100 people out of poverty, which do you do? Which should we collectively as a society do? As medical science improves, cases like this will undoubtedly become more and more common, so it's something that begs planning in accordance towards.

What do folks here think about the issue? Interested in hearing from both secular and Christian perspectives.

It's a good question. But not one we are built to answer. Wherever you're sitting reading this, just look around you right now. See all the 'stuff' you have? How much of it do you actually need? I'm looking at three guitars, pictures on the walls, an expensive TV with a sound system, an iPhone, the laptop on which I'm typing this...there's a fair amount of money I've spent on...me.

Should I have forgotten about what I want and spent the money on what other people need? I guess so. But we don't. We're evolutionary driven to think of ourselves first (along with close family) and others less so.

 

[Occams Barber]

I apologize about the clickbaity title, but it is accurate to the subject. So anyways...

I worked with a fella who had a 3 year old child with severe health issues. The child could not see, talk, barely move (not enough to even roll over), nor eat or breathe without machines. The doctors said this child will never leave the hospital and his condition will never substantially improve. Since this takes place in the U.S.A. which has medicaid with (now?) unlimited lifetime benefit, the child has incurred 5 million dollars worth of medical bills over his short life.

To me there is quite an ethical dilemma in this situation, that is to put (crudely) 'how much is a human life worth in dollars?' If it takes $5 to save someone's life, no questions asked we should do it, but what if it was 5 trillion? Resources are limited, such is the universe, and if immense resource goes to saving that one life, that means it would have to be redirected from other things which could save countless more lives (medical research, addiction treatment, agricultural science, etc.). If you have 5 million dollars and the choice to use it to save 1 life or lift 100 people out of poverty, which do you do? Which should we collectively as a society do? As medical science improves, cases like this will undoubtedly become more and more common, so it's something that begs planning in accordance towards.

What do folks here think about the issue? Interested in hearing from both secular and Christian perspectives.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way.

The issue should not be cost. Instead, we need to make hard-nosed decisions about the quality of the life we're maintaining irrespective of the cost of maintenance.

As hard as it sounds, if we insist on maintaining a vegetable in a bed, we are not doing the patient any favours and it's highly likely that we're acting to mitigate our own feelings rather than out of consideration for the affected person.

OB

 

[Robban]

I apologize about the clickbaity title, but it is accurate to the subject. So anyways...

I worked with a fella who had a 3 year old child with severe health issues. The child could not see, talk, barely move (not enough to even roll over), nor eat or breathe without machines. The doctors said this child will never leave the hospital and his condition will never substantially improve. Since this takes place in the U.S.A. which has medicaid with (now?) unlimited lifetime benefit, the child has incurred 5 million dollars worth of medical bills over his short life.

To me there is quite an ethical dilemma in this situation, that is to put (crudely) 'how much is a human life worth in dollars?' If it takes $5 to save someone's life, no questions asked we should do it, but what if it was 5 trillion? Resources are limited, such is the universe, and if immense resource goes to saving that one life, that means it would have to be redirected from other things which could save countless more lives (medical research, addiction treatment, agricultural science, etc.). If you have 5 million dollars and the choice to use it to save 1 life or lift 100 people out of poverty, which do you do? Which should we collectively as a society do? As medical science improves, cases like this will undoubtedly become more and more common, so it's something that begs planning in accordance towards.

What do folks here think about the issue? Interested in hearing from both secular and Christian perspectives.

Well, it does create jobs as does the weapons industry,

 

[Nithavela]

 

[durangodawood]

I think we shouldn't try to make any firm rules about it. Situations are going to vary wildly. People on the scene should respond as their consciences dictate with the resources available.

Well thats the question. Medicaid is part of the OP inquiry. Should the public make our resources available for situations like this?

 

[High Fidelity]

It’s difficult to answer, but it’s a valid question.

At what point does one life become more valuable than, say, two others. Medicine and care costs money. If the parents are prepared to pay then so be it, however that likely isn’t the case in the overwhelming majority of cases.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I apologize about the clickbaity title, but it is accurate to the subject. So anyways...

I worked with a fella who had a 3 year old child with severe health issues. The child could not see, talk, barely move (not enough to even roll over), nor eat or breathe without machines. The doctors said this child will never leave the hospital and his condition will never substantially improve. Since this takes place in the U.S.A. which has medicaid with (now?) unlimited lifetime benefit, the child has incurred 5 million dollars worth of medical bills over his short life.

To me there is quite an ethical dilemma in this situation, that is to put (crudely) 'how much is a human life worth in dollars?' If it takes $5 to save someone's life, no questions asked we should do it, but what if it was 5 trillion? Resources are limited, such is the universe, and if immense resource goes to saving that one life, that means it would have to be redirected from other things which could save countless more lives (medical research, addiction treatment, agricultural science, etc.). If you have 5 million dollars and the choice to use it to save 1 life or lift 100 people out of poverty, which do you do? Which should we collectively as a society do? As medical science improves, cases like this will undoubtedly become more and more common, so it's something that begs planning in accordance towards.

What do folks here think about the issue? Interested in hearing from both secular and Christian perspectives.

Other members have accused me of not being a Christian (despite the clear rule against that) because of my positions on abortion, which include this: It is better not to be born than to suffer constantly throughout a very short life. Nobody ever gave me a reason - not even a bad one - it is better to suffer constantly for a few years than never become a baby in the first place when everyone knows what the consequences of birth would be (if the fetus is even born alive at 40 weeks). When I think about the financial aspect of this, my concern is for the mom not having the money for neonatal care, then more hospital exams and treatments after her fatally defective baby finally goes home (if he/she ever does).

But something else I think about is what treatments such children are getting. When my dad was hospitalized with complications from Stage 4 colon cancer removal surgery, I saw tubes in his nostrils and mouth. I could not hug him. Near the end of his life I saw a nurse making him do what ICU patients have to do instead of cough. He also got 24/7 dialysis. There is no way I could see my own newborn baby like that if I was a new mom. Later there would be the grief of losing my baby, a person who died way too young and never had a chance to live a quality life. A person is worth more than $5 million if he or she grows up to be successful, but not even worth a penny if he or she is destined to suffer constantly and die a short time later.

I probably will be suspended for posting this, but it is extremely important to me that all Christians think about it from the perspectives of the mother and child instead of just hold up their Bibles screaming, "Abortion is a sin!" with absolutely no interest in what is called quality of life for all of humanity. And if they actually read their Bibles, they know what "Love your neighbor as yourself," and "Do to others what you would have them do to you," - two sentences that came directly out of the Lord's mouth - mean. Millions of people have been leaving Christianity because they hate this kind of behavior from conservative Christians and, unlike most evangelicals, care more about each person's quality of life than whether a fatally defective human offspring is born or not.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I think you're looking at it the wrong way.

The issue should not be cost. Instead, we need to make hard-nosed decisions about the quality of the life we're maintaining irrespective of the cost of maintenance.

As hard as it sounds, if we insist on maintaining a vegetable in a bed, we are not doing the patient any favous and it's highly likely that we're acting to mitigate our own feelings rather than out of consideration for the affected person.

This is why millions of adults, including myself and my mom, inform their doctors via living wills they do not want to be kept alive artificially. This is why Oregon Washington, and a few other states made euthanasia legal for people who know they have less than a year left to live and zero chance of leaving the hospital alive. When there is no quality of life left, every cent that is spent caring for that patient is wasted. When my dad was at the cancer hospital, I often thought, "If he was a cat, I would have them euthanized."

There is no reason we should try to make a distinction between a vegetable patient with no living will and a fatally defective fetus doomed to suffer every second of his or her life. People who do that only care about forcing both the mom and baby to suffer. They have no interest in a baby's quality of life after the umbilical cord is cut. They just want to be able to say, "Another baby was born!" When will they wake up and realize child birth is bad for both the mom and baby if she needs to pay $5 million in hospital bills within 3 years?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Well thats the question. Medicaid is part of the OP inquiry. Should the public make our resources available for situations like this?

Medicaid is for people way below the poverty line who can't get jobs. Unless the mother herself is severely disabled and unable to work, she is probably ineligible.

Five million dollars is way too much for almost everyone to pay. Even people with the best health insurance plans for pediatric care will be in the red if they are not millionaires.

And if that much money is required for one patient, there is no quality of life making it worth payment.

 

[Kale100]

Medicaid is for people way below the poverty line who can't get jobs. Unless the mother herself is severely disabled and unable to work, she is probably ineligible.

Five million dollars is way too much for almost everyone to pay. Even people with the best health insurance plans for pediatric care will be in the red if they are not millionaires.

And if that much money is required for one patient, there is no quality of life making it worth payment.

In this specific case, I believe the child was eligible for medicaid due to his disabilities, though the mother and father both had disabilities which allowed them to receive medicaid as well. The family did not receive any medical bills for their child's treatment.

As a side note, I'm happy this thread is generating thought provoking discussion

 

[GodLovesCats]

In this specific case, I believe the child was eligible for Medicaid due to his disabilities, though the mother and father both had disabilities which allowed them to receive Medicaid as well. The family did not receive any medical bills for their child's treatment.

As a side note, I'm happy this thread is generating thought provoking discussion.

If both parents are disabled and eligible for Medicaid, they can't take care of a baby anyway, even a healthy one. They should have decided not to have any kids.

 

[Kale100]

That is a whole other topic or 2 or 3. It's definitely a topic worth discussing, but it deserves its own thread.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I believe there are a number of factors that should go into that. How old is the person in question with older being "worse" The reason is because how much life is the person likely to have remaining if their life is saved. What resources are there? In some cases how they got in that state may even need to play a role Is it a result of years of self abuse or is it a result of something out of their control? Quality of life should play a certain role if someone is costing millions of dollars and yet all they are doing is existing with no quality of life and no chance of improvement then it is frankly selfish to keep them alive.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I believe there are a number of factors that should go into that. How old is the person in question with older being "worse." The reason is because how much life is the person likely to have remaining if their life is saved. What resources are there? In some cases how they got in that state may even need to play a role Is it a result of years of self abuse or is it a result of something out of their control? Quality of life should play a certain role if someone is costing millions of dollars and yet all they are doing is existing with no quality of life and no chance of improvement then it is frankly selfish to keep them alive.

Age is a non-facvtor if that person is in grave condition. My dad was only 58. Did that make his life worth more than someone who is 98 and on life support? Not at all if the 58-year old man is in the same condition as the 98-year old man. You are assuming a 58-year old man has more life left than a 98-year old man when both men are in grave condition and on life support.

The OP is about a child whose life had no chance of being saved. Doctors knew leaving the hospital alive was impossible. So you cannot talk about a hypothetical future everyone knew was not going to happen. The only question is how much a human life is worth right now while he/she is on life support in grave condition.

Resources do not matter if there is no quality of life left. You could be Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk and decide being super-rich means absolutely nothing if someone you love is permanently on life support. They do matter if the patient is someone like Damar Hamlin, but in this specific case, every cent was wasted.

I made my wishes known to my doctors through a lawyer I do not want to be put on life support under any conditions. Quality of life should be everyone's top priority.

 

[Bradskii]

Age is a non-facvtor if that person is in grave condition. My dad was only 58. Did that make his life worth more than someone who is 98 and on life support? Not at all if the 58-year old man is in the same condition as the 98-year old man. You are assuming a 58-year old man has more life left than a 98-year old man when both men are in grave condition and on life support.

If both are cured then the old guy is past his use-by date. Your dad would have many more useful years. So if the doctors could save just one then your dad is the lucky guy. This scenario is quite common.

But...it gets trickier. If it costs $1m to save him, isn't it better to spend $10k on each of 100 malnourished children in Sudan?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Age is a non-facvtor if that person is in grave condition. My dad was only 58. Did that make his life worth more than someone who is 98 and on life support? Not at all if the 58-year old man is in the same condition as the 98-year old man. You are assuming a 58-year old man has more life left than a 98-year old man when both men are in grave condition and on life support.

The OP is about a child whose life had no chance of being saved. Doctors knew leaving the hospital alive was impossible. So you cannot talk about a hypothetical future everyone knew was not going to happen. The only question is how much a human life is worth right now while he/she is on life support in grave condition.

Resources do not matter if there is no quality of life left. You could be Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk and decide being super-rich means absolutely nothing if someone you love is permanently on life support. They do matter if the patient is someone like Damar Hamlin, but in this specific case, every cent was wasted.

I made my wishes known to my doctors through a lawyer I do not want to be put on life support under any conditions. Quality of life should be everyone's top priority.

If you are on life support with ZERO chance of getting better then it will not or at least should not matter how old they are, but quality of life is more than just being in grave condition v not moreover it depends on how one defines grave.

 

[GodLovesCats]

If both are cured then the old guy is past his use-by date. Your dad would have many more useful years. So if the doctors could save just one then your dad is the lucky guy. This scenario is quite common.

But...it gets trickier. If it costs $1m to save him, isn't it better to spend $10k on each of 100 malnourished children in Sudan?

What don't you understand about the OP example being someone who is not curable? You can't use any totally unrealistic hypothetical assumption a person will be cured in this argument because this thread is only about people who have no chance of being cured of a disease, disability, or other bodily malfunction and leaving the hospital alive. Stop pretending this thread is about medical miracles.

 

[stevil]

I apologize about the clickbaity title, but it is accurate to the subject. So anyways...

I worked with a fella who had a 3 year old child with severe health issues. The child could not see, talk, barely move (not enough to even roll over), nor eat or breathe without machines. The doctors said this child will never leave the hospital and his condition will never substantially improve. Since this takes place in the U.S.A. which has medicaid with (now?) unlimited lifetime benefit, the child has incurred 5 million dollars worth of medical bills over his short life.

To me there is quite an ethical dilemma in this situation, that is to put (crudely) 'how much is a human life worth in dollars?' If it takes $5 to save someone's life, no questions asked we should do it, but what if it was 5 trillion? Resources are limited, such is the universe, and if immense resource goes to saving that one life, that means it would have to be redirected from other things which could save countless more lives (medical research, addiction treatment, agricultural science, etc.). If you have 5 million dollars and the choice to use it to save 1 life or lift 100 people out of poverty, which do you do? Which should we collectively as a society do? As medical science improves, cases like this will undoubtedly become more and more common, so it's something that begs planning in accordance towards.

What do folks here think about the issue? Interested in hearing from both secular and Christian perspectives.

The title of this thread is so massively open.

But I'll first address this particular situation.
I'm less worried about the money, but more interested in the quality of life for this child and whether this child is suffering.
I see no value in extending this child's suffering. I accept the need for euthanasia on humanitarian grounds.

I'd prefer, if a decision was made to end this child's life, that it was done properly, with some kind of treatment where the child just goes to sleep. I would find it pretty horrific if this child were to just have the machines turned off and then suffocate.

From a money perspective, is should be considered, how many other lives can be saved for that same money?