That is why we go to some government controlled health system where people can purchase coverage above the basics if it can be afforded. Then, we can make sure those who need it most get the help and those who want to can get coverage for things deemed to not have a value in line with the cost.
Ben,
I would question your statement of "or make any type of contribution to society." Who decides what contribution they make or how much is enough? Are all types of contribution related to money, or do other contributions qualify?
I know nothing about this drug, other than what you've stated. If you provided a link to the article, I don't see it. But, if this drug were to give these people some of their facilities back, so that they could remember and communicate the knowledge and experience they had before Alzheimer's robbed them of that ability, then I would consider them to be contributing to society.
However, aside from that, I see the debate from an entirely different angle. I am the mother of three children with moderate to severe developmental disabilities (Autism Spectrum Disorder). They currently receive a lot of state and federal funding to help improve their conditions and their lives. Without this assistance there is virtually no chance that they will ever "contribute" to society in the typical manner. With it, there is a chance, but there are too many unknowns to determine an accurate statistical analysis weighing costs/benefit ratios. However, all that aside, even as they are now, they do make tremendous contributions to my family and to those they interact with. Nobody has met my children, spent at least two hours with them, and not fallen in love with them. They are absolutely fantastic kids. While this may simply sound like a mother's brags to you, I hear it from so many different people I don't question it in the least.
So, in your opinion, do you think a child's ability to make anyone smile and feel loved, even though they can't talk to communicate, is a "type of contribution to society" and if not, why? What would consider to be a equitable way to determine who is worth it?
Stephanie,
I was speaking strictly from an economic standpoint. There has to be a line somewhere for some people. If my daughter developed some condition, I would pay anything to save her, but only if it meant she could enjoy her life. I'll leave it at that.
The article was in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week. I didn't point to it because it required a costly subscription. I subscribe to the print edition.
I am certainly not in a position to tell someone their children's lives are not worth saving. I was primarily thinking about the elderly when I wrote this, only thinking to stir up thought in my readers (if you haven't noticed, I don't have that many.)
I have found related articles here, here, and here.
Economically, I understand your point. However, my point was more to the fact that ideas, once we begin to apply them, take on a life of their own. Once somebody starts determining who is worth it, than other people are going to be affected. If an elderly person who no longer contributes to the economy in the same manner as a working adult isn't worth the expense, then why would a child be worth it when they have never contributed to the economy the way a working adult does.
Weighing the value of a human life based on their economic contribution is a good way to get a lot of people killed, imo.
Another consideration: why should criminals, who are locked up in prison, receive any medical care at all? They are not making an economic contribution to society, and are instead costing society a lot of money, both for their crimes and their incarceration. Let them go without medical care.
But see, that's considered inhumane. Which is why the elderly have been getting medical care in the first place.
Geez, this is becoming quite the argument. Here's the end of it:
My daughter has more potential to contribute than my grandmother. That's why.
I think that prisoners often aren't treated as prisoners. I must agree with you there.
The end.
It is not about the value they provide us, but the value of the care that we provide them. Every life has value which is only lessened by some measures.
Commenting by HaloScan
