Ethics of immortality through healthcare

[Percivale]

If we developed the ability to keep people alive indefinitely, would we have a responsibility to make that available to everyone? If the healthcare that it took to do that was too expensive, how would we decide who gets it?
Or would it be wrong to use it at all?

 

[com7fy8]

Whether it would be good would depend on the individual.

Jesus says, "He who loves his life will lose it," in John 12:25. So, if a person were living selfishly, he or she would lose real life, real love, even while living forever. Of course, we see how the LORD did not want Adam and Eve to eat of the Tree of Everlasting Life; so He banished them from the Garden of Eden. So, possibly God's ruling with His control will make sure humans do not produce their own immortality scheme.

Ones without the immortality thing could have quality if not quantity of life, by loving.

I personally am satisfied with how God pleases to do things with me. I am curious how He already knows He has planned for me to die. And His word says, "be content with such things as you have," in Hebrews 13:5. So, we can be content with all God pleases to do with us, and not be wishing for life longer than we are going to get.

So, if He has us content, it is likely He won't have us pushing to be first to get some immortality shot or drug or maintenance treatment.

Therefore, it is possible the most greedy and unhappy ones will try to be the first, when we can have quality, now.

Ones with money could get it; and ones with power could if it was available in their cultural settings.

But it could be like how many do not trust the COVID vaccines. Ones would not trust the immortality thing, even if it worked and was safe.

 

[essentialsaltes]

From the individual side, we would want to provide this to everyone as a great boon.
From the society side, it would cause our population to grow out of control (unless other measures were put in place to limit procreation).

It would be tough to navigate what is best for everyone.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

If we developed the ability to keep people alive indefinitely, would we have a responsibility to make that available to everyone? If the healthcare that it took to do that was too expensive, how would we decide who gets it?
Or would it be wrong to use it at all?

No. If you create something of great value, why would you have a responsibility to give it away? You should charge as high a price as the market will bear. Then as volume allows you to lower the price, others who can afford it can buy it. There's no right to something that someone else has to produce.

 

[Junia]

A long life is a blessing if that life has quality. Fulfilment, purpose etc..would you want to live forever, unless that were the case? Many very elderly believers are tired of life and waiting to go home to Jesus.

Also, we never die. We don't see death. Bible says that those who trust in Jesus have eternal life

 

[ViaCrucis]

No. If you create something of great value, why would you have a responsibility to give it away? You should charge as high a price as the market will bear. Then as volume allows you to lower the price, others who can afford it can buy it. There's no right to something that someone else has to produce.

I suspect I finally understand what your name means now.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I suspect I finally understand what your name means now.

-CryptoLutheran

Does anyone on this forum ever answer a direct question? I'm trying to understand the principle at the root of this OP. The premise of the OP is that some breakthrough in medicine makes it possible to vastly improve health. Then he asks "how would we decide who gets it?". Well, in a free society, the owner or creator gets to decide, "we" don't. Is the principle here that if someone is in need, that gives him a claim on the lives and work of others? If this is the principle underlying the OP, then how is that principle validated? Right now I need a new car. My old one is dying. I can't afford to get one right now even though I need it badly. Does this give me a claim on the owner of a car dealership? No, it does not. I'm going to have to work extra long hours to get the money.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Does anyone on this forum ever answer a direct question? I'm trying to understand the principle at the root of this OP. The premise of the OP is that some breakthrough in medicine makes it possible to vastly improve health. Then he asks "how would we decide who gets it?". Well, in a free society, the owner or creator gets to decide, "we" don't. Is the principle here that if someone is in need, that gives him a claim on the lives and work of others? If this is the principle underlying the OP, then how is that principle validated? Right now I need a new car. My old one is dying. I can't afford to get one right now even though I need it badly. Does this give me a claim on the owner of a car dealership? No, it does not. I'm going to have to work extra long hours to get the money.

Both me and another person are hungry, and I have two sandwiches. Do I...

A) Give the other sandwich to the other hungry person so they can eat too?
B) Save the second sandwich for myself for when I get hungry again later?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Both me and another person are hungry, and I have two sandwiches. Do I...

A) Give the other sandwich to the other hungry person so they can eat too?
B) Save the second sandwich for myself for when I get hungry again later?

-CryptoLutheran

Well if it was me I'd give him the sandwich but I would do it because I'm a nice guy and I like doing nice things for people. It would also depend on why he was hungry. Is he hungry because he's in between jobs or because he spent all his money on drugs and alcohol? I'm not going to help someone who does not share my values and is in trouble because of his own irrational actions.

But this is really not the same thing as a very expensive medicine. I can replace a sandwich easily. Also, there is the difference that the sandwich is mine and I get to dispose of it any way I want. I would have no right to decide what you would do with your sandwich. Or if I didn't know where my next meal was coming from, I'd keep it for later. If I wasn't poor I'd probably give him the sandwich but does this mean that I then have to provide sandwiches to everyone who needs one. The reason I ask is that there is a premise hidden in that question that might seem trivial but is really unspeakably evil. And this premise which is uttered with casual abandon is a premise that is currently destroying the world.

Really this is a terrible analogy because it takes on average over a billion dollars to bring a new drug to market and it is profits that pay for it. A sandwich costs $5.00. The question is who has the right to dispose of that medicine, the creator or people who didn't create it but reserve the right to tell others how they will spend their profits.

There's another hidden premise in his question. He says "we" develop a drug. It's individuals working together that produce things like this, not "we" and each person's contribution is compensated by means of the free market. Each person involved does so voluntarily and to mutual benefit and the costs and compensation are agreed upon by everyone.
The OP's is a collectivized view of property that ignores where products like this fictional medicine come from. I see it often that people talk about effects while ignoring the cause.

So I ask again and I hope you will answer: does the fact that someone is in need give him a claim to the life and property of others? Even though a sandwich cost a pittance and a new drug requires hundreds of thousands of hours to make and billions of dollars, the principle is the same. To quote my favorite person of all time, Walter E. Williams, "to reach into one's own pocket for the purpose of charity is worthy of praise, to reach into someone else's pocket is worthy of contempt.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Well if it was me I'd give him the sandwich but I would do it because I'm a nice guy and I like doing nice things for people. It would also depend on why he was hungry. Is he hungry because he's in between jobs or because he spent all his money on drugs and alcohol? I'm not going to help someone who does not share my values and is in trouble because of his own irrational actions.

But this is really not the same thing as a very expensive medicine. I can replace a sandwich easily. Also, there is the difference that the sandwich is mine and I get to dispose of it any way I want. I would have no right to decide what you would do with your sandwich. Or if I didn't know where my next meal was coming from, I'd keep it for later. If I wasn't poor I'd probably give him the sandwich but does this mean that I then have to provide sandwiches to everyone who needs one. The reason I ask is that there is a premise hidden in that question that might seem trivial but is really unspeakably evil. And this premise which is uttered with casual abandon is a premise that is currently destroying the world.

Really this is a terrible analogy because it takes on average over a billion dollars to bring a new drug to market and it is profits that pay for it. A sandwich costs $5.00. The question is who has the right to dispose of that medicine, the creator or people who didn't create it but reserve the right to tell others how they will spend their profits.

It's about establishing a baseline of ethical behavior: Does the individual have any moral responsibility in regard to other human beings.

I would argue yes.

There's another hidden premise in his question. He says "we" develop a drug. It's individuals working together that produce things like this, not "we" and each person's contribution is compensated by means of the free market. Each person involved does so voluntarily and to mutual benefit and the costs and compensation are agreed upon by everyone.
The OP's is a collectivized view of property that ignores where products like this fictional medicine come from. I see it often that people talk about effects while ignoring the cause.

So I ask again and I hope you will answer: does the fact that someone is in need give him a claim to the life and property of others? Even though a sandwich cost a pittance and a new drug requires hundreds of thousands of hours to make and billions of dollars, the principle is the same. To quote my favorite person of all time, Walter E. Williams, "to reach into one's own pocket for the purpose of charity is worthy of praise, to reach into someone else's pocket is worthy of contempt.

The question itself makes particular moral assumptions, by framing it in the language of claiming the property of another. That's simply not the relevant question to be asking. The relevant question to be asking is if those who have the means have a moral responsibility toward those who lack. It's not about whether the poor have a "claim", it's that those who have, have the moral responsibility toward those who have not. In this case, that means medicine for those who need it.

And, yes, that responsibility does in fact exist. But I also won't pretend that I am approaching this from some neutral position. I'm a Christian, and my religion teaches me that I regard others as I would myself--the needs of my neighbor are no less important than my own, and I should regard the fact that my neighbor is hungry in the same way that I would regard my own hunger. If my neighbor is hungry, feed him.

And because I'm not an isolated island of humanity, but part of a larger society of integrated human persons attempting to eke out existence in this world, I have the moral responsibility toward that society and seeking to make that society more just and equitable--especially for those deprived of such justice and equity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Percivale]

I know what objectivism is, but most of us disagree with it. Government funds much of healthcare, as well as research, in all developed countries. But for extending life beyond normal limits leaving it to those who can afford it is an option worthy of discussion. Supposing that were the case, and you were rich, how would you decide whether to get that treatment, for yourself or your parents?

 

[Robban]

If we developed the ability to keep people alive indefinitely, would we have a responsibility to make that available to everyone? If the healthcare that it took to do that was too expensive, how would we decide who gets it?
Or would it be wrong to use it at all?

Ascetism leads to purity,

purity leads to holiness,

holiness leads to humility,

humility leads to saintliness ,

saintliness leads to the (possession of) the holy spirit,

and the holy spirit leads to eternal life.

Talmud,

 

[Tinker Grey]

Ascetism leads to purity,

purity leads to holiness,

holiness leads to humility,

humility leads to saintliness ,

saintliness leads to the (possession of) the holy spirit,

and the holy spirit leads to eternal life.

Talmud,

I count 6 non sequiturs.

 

[Robban]

I count 6 non sequiturs.

Explain

 

[Tinker Grey]

I see no evidence that asceticism leads to purity.

I see no evidence that purity leads to holiness.

I see no holiness leads to humility.

Etc.

 

[Robban]

I see no evidence that asceticism leads to purity.

I see no evidence that purity leads to holiness.

I see no holiness leads to humility.

Etc.

Ahwell, good to know that you have given it much thought.

 

[Robban]

I see no evidence that asceticism leads to purity.

I see no evidence that purity leads to holiness.

I see no holiness leads to humility.

Etc.

Hi Tinker, here is another one,

Ten powerful things were created in the world;

Mountains are hard,
but iron cuts through them.

Iron is hard, but fire melts it.

Fire is strong, but water extinguishes it.

Water is strong, but clouds bear it.

Clouds are strong, but wind scatters them.

Wind is strong, but the body contains it.

The body is strong, but fear breaks it.

Fear is potent, but wine dispels it.

Wine is strong, but sleep assuages it.

And stronger than all these is death,

But charity delivers from death.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Hi Tinker, here is another one,

Ten powerful things were created in the world;

Mountains are hard,
but iron cuts through them.

Iron is hard, but fire melts it.

Fire is strong, but water extinguishes it.

Water is strong, but clouds bear it.

Clouds are strong, but wind scatters them.

Wind is strong, but the body contains it.

The body is strong, but fear breaks it.

Fear is potent, but wine dispels it.

Wine is strong, but sleep assuages it.

And stronger than all these is death,

But charity delivers from death.

Deepity

 

[Robban]

Deepity

Just for the sake of it I checked out the word,
"Ascetism"

And found this;
How do you become ascetic?

1, Think of a reason that shall motivate you on your ascetic journey.

2, Adopt a healthy diet, even at the cost of your food being of less taste.

3,Atempt to be as less socially active as you can.

4, Practice voluntary isolation.

5, Dedicate your ascetic lifestyle on a goal.

6, Live simply.

Taking into consideration this virus plague,

looks like it is layed on a plate.

Would reckon.