How much is a human life worth?

[GodLovesCats]

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?

I agree, but the euthanasia should have occurred in the mother's uterus, not on a hospital bed. The child's suffering started immediately, so the mom had no reason to give birth.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

It's addressing the same problem. How much time, effort and money do you spend on one person as opposed to another. Or as opposed to many.

 

[stevil]

I agree, but the euthanasia should have occurred in the mother's uterus, not on a hospital bed. The child's suffering started immediately, so the mom had no reason to give birth.

But she didn't and now a situation like this is at hand. What path is there forward...

 

[stevil]

It's addressing the same problem. How much time, effort and money do you spend on one person as opposed to another. Or as opposed to many.

There are three POV that matter.
The child's - Although the child is incapable of expressing their own viewpoint, and incapable of making decisions, the next best decision maker should consider the child's viewpoint.
The caregivers/parents - What are their beliefs regarding euthanasia, what are their beliefs regarding if the child will recover? what is their ability to finance treatment?
Society/government - Tax payer funds are limited, where is the best value for this money.

 

[GodLovesCats]

It's addressing the same problem. How much time, effort and money do you spend on one person as opposed to another. Or as opposed to many.

The word "want" does not matter if you do not have it. If you do not have money, which is obviously the case in the OP, you are not the one spending it. How much the biological family values the human life they cannot pay every cent to save is totally subjective. However, the ability to do what must be done to save that human life is totally objective and if family members cannot do it, nothing else matters; the person must die.

For this reason, I totally support single-payer health care for everyone who cannot afford to pay all health care expenses out of pocket and will never understand why so many people are against the idea all Americans should have comprehensive health insurance. Imagine how many human lives could be saved if nobody needed to pay thousands or even millions of dollars to save one human life.

 

[Gene2memE]

Another take on the subject:

About 20 years ago I attended a talk by a retired civil engineer whose job revolved around re-designing sections of road infrastructure to improve safety. The goal was to eliminate 'blackspots' - sections of road that had higher than normal rates of fatal crashes. He'd been working on this since the 1970s.

There was a reasonably grim, if practical, way of working out where the money should be spent.

They worked on a 'net future government revenue' model. The idea was that the average worker driving in their car earned X amount and contributed Y amount to whatever business they worked for, generating Z amount of profit. All of this would be taxed, earning revenue for the government.

From this, they produced a figure of how much that average person would contribute to the economy and then multiplied it by their future expected working life. I think this was set at 25 years.

The figure they arrived at (in the early 2000s) was about $550,000 per person (about $900,000 in current [Australian] dollars).

This sort of cost-benefit analysis led to some perverse outcomes though.

For instance, if a section of road killed 1 person per year but cost $20 million to fix, it wasn't worth it (economically speaking) to change it. You'd made a 'loss' (so to speak) of about $9 million.

But, if a different section of road only had 1 fatality every 5 years, but cost just $2 million to fix it, then economically speaking you'd made a 'profit' of about $0.2 million by fixing it.

The basic idea was that if the government only had X amount to spend on road safety improvements, then they'd want to save the maximum amount of lives for the money spent. And if the future tax revenue generated by those lives was greater than the X amount spent on safety, then there was a net economic benefit to doing so.

Things have changed now, and this sort of actuarial calculus of human life isn't used any more (mostly because road fatality rates are about 1/6th of what they used to be). Plus, there are all sorts of other calculations that go on to determine whether a road project will get the green light or not.

 

[Bradskii]

Another take on the subject:

About 20 years ago I attended a talk by a retired civil engineer whose job revolved around re-designing sections of road infrastructure to improve safety. The goal was to eliminate 'blackspots' - sections of road that had higher than normal rates of fatal crashes. He'd been working on this since the 1970s.

There was a reasonably grim, if practical, way of working out where the money should be spent.

They worked on a 'net future government revenue' model. The idea was that the average worker driving in their car earned X amount and contributed Y amount to whatever business they worked for, generating Z amount of profit. All of this would be taxed, earning revenue for the government.

From this, they produced a figure of how much that average person would contribute to the economy and then multiplied it by their future expected working life. I think this was set at 25 years.

The figure they arrived at (in the early 2000s) was about $550,000 per person (about $900,000 in current [Australian] dollars).

This sort of cost-benefit analysis led to some perverse outcomes though.

For instance, if a section of road killed 1 person per year but cost $20 million to fix, it wasn't worth it (economically speaking) to change it. You'd made a 'loss' (so to speak) of about $9 million.

But, if a different section of road only had 1 fatality every 5 years, but cost just $2 million to fix it, then economically speaking you'd made a 'profit' of about $0.2 million by fixing it.

The basic idea was that if the government only had X amount to spend on road safety improvements, then they'd want to save the maximum amount of lives for the money spent. And if the future tax revenue generated by those lives was greater than the X amount spent on safety, then there was a net economic benefit to doing so.

Things have changed now, and this sort of actuarial calculus of human life isn't used any more (mostly because road fatality rates are about 1/6th of what they used to be). Plus, there are all sorts of other calculations that go on to determine whether a road project will get the green light or not.

Nice take. AndI read one literally yesterday on the same lines. It was about governments forcing people to have seat belts in aicraft for children below a certain age. Which meant that they'd need their own seat. Which meant that the parents had to spend more going from A to B. So a lot would drive instead. And because car accidents are a LOT more frequent than aircraft crashes more children would be then killed with seatbelts in cars than without them in planes.

 

[Astrid]

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.

Depends

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

Are you aware of the traditional Christian answer?

As long as extraordinary measures are not required, it is the duty of every human being to preserve and sustain the life of those who are disabled or helpless. Judging a life as "not worthy of life" is not a Christian attitude.

 

[Astrid]

Are you aware of the traditional Christian answer?

As long as extraordinary measures are not required, it is the duty of every human being to preserve and sustain the life of those who are disabled or helpless. Judging a life as "not worthy of life" is not a Christian attitude.

Do you think "worth", and "worthy" are the same thing?

That aside, if I had been able to disable the sadist
who raped me I don't see myself obligated to render aid.

 

[Kale100]

Are you aware of the traditional Christian answer?

As long as extraordinary measures are not required, it is the duty of every human being to preserve and sustain the life of those who are disabled or helpless. Judging a life as "not worthy of life" is not a Christian attitude.

The topic of the thread is what constitutes the bolded.