Assigning value to a life

[DarkProphet]

We try not to think about it but we assign differing values to different lives. Obviously the lives of loved ones are more valuable then those of strangers but it gets more complex then that.

Take this hypothetical for example, there is one heart that can go to one of three people, a teenager with unknown potential, an older man who's business has given people many jobs, or an inmate that is doing life that is medically the best match.

This hypothetical has no right answer it's a value judgment but something to think about when discussing things like abortion or stem cell research.

With that being said, to you what makes a person more valuable then another?

 

[Hypothetical]

In a fair situation, whoever was put on the donor list first should get the first heart.
In reality, my bet is on the one with the most money.

As to the value question, you answered that in your second sentence. People assign higher value to those who are closest to them, either by friendship or ideals. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, unless it leads to “us vs them” situations.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

First of, GREAT question!

We try not to think about it but we assign differing values to different lives. Obviously the lives of loved ones are more valuable then those of strangers but it gets more complex then that.

Take this hypothetical for example, there is one heart that can go to one of three people, a teenager with unknown potential, an older man who's business has given people many jobs, or an inmate that is doing life that is medically the best match.

This hypothetical has no right answer it's a value judgment but something to think about when discussing things like abortion or stem cell research.

With that being said, to you what makes a person more valuable then another?

I'd agree with the poster before me who said that the heart should go to the first person on the list. And that's where the heart would go. Money really isn't a factor when it comes to organ donation. The only real consideration made is health - is the person receiving the heart in good enough condition to receive it?

If I had to choose between saving one member of my family or saving someone else, it would be a difficult choice to make. Ultimately, I'd like to say I'd try to save both, but that's too idealistic and unrealistic. I would save my family member because they are family. However, I would grieve for the other I could not save. Their lives weren't of lesser worth.

Does that make sense?

 

[b&wpac4]

If I recall, aren't younger people bumped up donor's lists a bit?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

If I recall, aren't younger people bumped up donor's lists a bit?

I don't think so, but I haven't really been involved that much anymore. My cousin was on the transplant list for years before she got her liver - there were older people on the list first. She was bumped up twice because a few of the donors ahead of her were deemed ineligible to receive the liver (health factors).

But, that WAS 20 years ago. Things may have changed since then.

 

[jayem]

In the real world of transplants, how organ recipients are prioritized is by medical criteria exclusively. The main factor being the urgency of the need. But other medical factors predicting a successful outcome would also come into play. I have some experience with the Midwest Regional Transplant Network, which coordinates organ transplants in my area. AFAIK, they are quite scrupulous about using purely medical criteria in allocating organs.

The question about how a person's life is valued is a different issue. I'll say in general, there are at least two variables determining the value of anything. 1) The provision of something we see as good. 2) The ease of replacement. The higher the value we place on something is: 1) directly related to how much good it provides us, and 2) inversely related to how easy it is to replace. I think this applies to persons as well as things. We'd give the highest value to someone who provides us with the most good, and is irreplaceable.

 

[mpok1519]

life's value is an apriori maxim. =) think about that one.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

We try not to think about it but we assign differing values to different lives. Obviously the lives of loved ones are more valuable then those of strangers but it gets more complex then that.

Take this hypothetical for example, there is one heart that can go to one of three people, a teenager with unknown potential, an older man who's business has given people many jobs, or an inmate that is doing life that is medically the best match.

This hypothetical has no right answer it's a value judgment but something to think about when discussing things like abortion or stem cell research.

With that being said, to you what makes a person more valuable then another?

This is a very good thread question. Why only a few responses?

A person that is more valuable to me than another person, is someone that is non-violent and does not see any need for recognition for anything they do.

Like my mother.* And I'll bet yours.



*My father was not a big spanking kind of disciplinarian but he got more intense than mom on occassion. But he wanted recognition far more often than mom (I had two pretty great parents.)

 

[heavensblade23]

I would go with the best match. Medicine shouldn't be making value judgments about people's lifestyles, but rather looking at outcomes. The heart would do little good to the other two if it were rejected after a few weeks.

 

[GuidanceNeeded]

We try not to think about it but we assign differing values to different lives. Obviously the lives of loved ones are more valuable then those of strangers but it gets more complex then that.

Take this hypothetical for example, there is one heart that can go to one of three people, a teenager with unknown potential, an older man who's business has given people many jobs, or an inmate that is doing life that is medically the best match.

This hypothetical has no right answer it's a value judgment but something to think about when discussing things like abortion or stem cell research.

With that being said, to you what makes a person more valuable then another?

Thats a very hard question, so who deserves the heart?

I would say the young teenager.

Reasons:

• The older man has lived a life (maybe not a long one, but nonetheless)
• The same would go for the inmate, not because he is a criminal but obivisously he is older than the teenager, so he too has experienced life (whether or not he made the best of it).

 

[quatona]

I´d throw dice.
There are persons I like better than others.

 

[Ave Maria]

I would go with the best match. Medicine shouldn't be making value judgments about people's lifestyles, but rather looking at outcomes. The heart would do little good to the other two if it were rejected after a few weeks.

I agree totally. Medicine shouldn't make value judgments. Whoever was the best match should get the heart or whatever organ it is that is being transplanted.

 

[Verv]

I say give it to the teenager.

He's got a lot of life ahead of him.

Someone else can run the business of the biznessmensch.

 

[PuzzledBread]

All lives are of equal value to me, to assign more value to the lives of others paves the way for groups of people to exist without value in my eyes.