At what costs? Preserving human life.

Malotis · 06-25-2008, 05:21 PM

Several weeks ago my uncle had a child born prematurely. The child was about the size of a dollar bill at birth. My uncle was told by multiple doctors that the child would not survive past a week and to let the child go. My uncle did not heed the advice of the doctors and insisted on doing everything that was possible to keep his child alive. A week passed and then another week and thanks to modern medicine the child managed to stay alive despite the predictions from the doctors on the case.

My father is an OB/GYN and I took the opportunity to ask him some questions about the case. I asked him how much money it cost to keep my cousin alive. He estimated that it was easily a 3 million dollar baby. I asked him the probability of the child living past a year. He said it was greater now that the child had survived for this long, but all in all, it was still slim. I asked him that if against the odds the child somehow managed to survive the ordeal then what were the chances the child would live with out permanent mental or physical deficiencies. He said very low and that in all likelihood the child would never be able to function on its own. Finally, I asked him who was paying for the child’s medical bills. He told me the tax payers. Because my uncle doesn’t have medical insurance the child qualified for medicate which paid for everything. Also, even if he had privately covered insurance, how much would cases like this increase the costs for everyone else?

I guess I was stunned. Why is society investing millions of dollars into a child that will probably not live, and if it did live would probably need assistance for the rest of its life? To me it almost seems unethical to use resources like this when I consider the Americans who can barely afford the pharmaceutical drugs they need, not to mention, the 50 million or so Americans with out any medical insurance at all.

Do you think that under all circumstances society should do everything it can to preserve human life? Do you think the millions of dollars invested were justified in the attempts to save my cousin? Or should there be policies implemented regulating when a life is worth trying to save and when it is not?

**athenian200** · 06-25-2008, 05:32 PM

From an ethical standpoint, I'd say it's impossible to place a value on sentient life.

From a financial standpoint, I'd say government involvement in an individual's medical expenses should have a financial cap. Probably around $500,000.

Individuals should be allowed to spend as much as they feel is right on themselves or their relatives. The government should not operate so liberally, as it has responsibility to all citizens that outweighs their obligation to that one. They shouldn't hurt the rest of the population for the sake of one person, or a few people. In matters of governance, the good of the many should outweigh the good of the few.

In one's personal choices, I don't think that's so clear.

**Saint** · 06-25-2008, 05:36 PM

Regardless of the odds, can you ever blame a father for trying to save his son? I'd find that very hard to do.

At what cost? How about a second mortgage on the goddamn house?

(disclaimer: I don't have kids, I can't say what it's like to be responsible for a child, etc...)

Edit: I suppose I should say that I do not agree with holding on to human lives at great expense (to society), but find it hard to blame a father (or similar figure) for making that decision.

**meanlittlechimp** · 06-25-2008, 05:46 PM

I agree. If you can save 15 others with the same limited resources, than it's better to let that child die. This is referring to the health care system however and assuming that you would have to let 15 others die in the attempt to save one child.

If the parents are wealthy and it was all at their expense, than it's not an issue from a systemic viewpoint. Though it could arguably be one from a moral perspective.

**Max** · 06-25-2008, 05:49 PM

I think it's outrageous to spend $3 million on a baby the size of a dollar bill and imagine how much more it would have costed if it would have survived (assuming that it wasn't able to function on it's own). Taxpayers having to pay that much for something that isn't going to survive or, if it did survive, would cost a whole lot more (without having the ability to give back) just isn't right, in my opinion. I mean, sure it's human life...but you have to drawn a line somewhere.

**Shakyamuni** · 06-25-2008, 06:00 PM

Spock: The needs of the many... outweigh -
Kirk: The needs of the few.
Spock: Or the one.
The Wrath of Khan

There comes a point of diminishing returns, even when dealing with moral issues. It is to easy to simply take the moral highground and claim a human life is priceless etc etc.

**Monte314** · 06-25-2008, 06:32 PM

Very difficult problem. This is the kind of decision that should be made without "self-interest" in the picture, but that's awful hard.

**Grizzly** · 06-26-2008, 04:27 AM

Denying someone the option of helping their child survive because of a cost comparison is not an effective argument.
I'm not happy my tax dollars are being used to support this man's child, who even after all this might not become a contributing member to society, but I would fight just as hard as him if I was in his shoes.

**Homini Lupus** · 06-26-2008, 05:45 AM

Theoretically it makes sense. Preserving life of its citizens is the most basic role of the state. Practically it doesn't.

**SiMey** · 06-26-2008, 07:42 AM

	Originally Posted by PsychadelicPowe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do you think that under all circumstances society should do everything it can to preserve human life?

No. I'm generally wary of absolutes.

The difficulty for me here is that there is a rational logical argument ie the needs of the many and the diminishing returns mentioned above versus the emotional argument about the value of one life or the needs of the few/one. It's sort of like arguing whether apples or rocks make better pilots.

Should we argue about the value of a human life? It is unique, just like everybody else.

Is there an oversupply of human life?

Do the other ants notice when an ant is squashed?

**azelismia** · 06-26-2008, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Max
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think it's outrageous to spend $3 million on a baby the size of a dollar bill and imagine how much more it would have costed if it would have survived (assuming that it wasn't able to function on it's own). Taxpayers having to pay that much for something that isn't going to survive or, if it did survive, would cost a whole lot more (without having the ability to give back) just isn't right, in my opinion. I mean, sure it's human life...but you have to drawn a line somewhere.

I agree. a line should be drawn. it's unlikely that at the size of a dollar bill it's fully wired yet even. it's just a vegetable. no reason to spend that much money on something that isn't viable. I don't think the tax payers should be liable for that bill.

azelismia added to this post, 0 minutes and 57 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by Grizzly To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Denying someone the option of helping their child survive because of a cost comparison is not an effective argument. I'm not happy my tax dollars are being used to support this man's child, who even after all this might not become a contributing member to society, but I would fight just as hard as him if I was in his shoes.

I'd argue it wasn't a child yet. it's still very much just a fetus.

**Antares** · 06-27-2008, 03:27 AM

To me, the survival of the 'dollar bill' is very unlikely, and concerning that it costs three million, it's definitely not worth it to spend that much only to bring up a dysfunctional child (assuming that it survives). Is it unethical? Or inhumane? I wouldn't think so. First off, it's a fetus instead of a thinking, feeling human. It's more inhumane to invest that much into a child who isn't likely to be normal anyway than the ability to use the same amount of money to save many more people (or children who are likely to be normal and fare well in life). It's still the 'majority rules', if you understand what I mean.

	Originally Posted by Grizzly To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Denying someone the option of helping their child survive because of a cost comparison is not an effective argument. I'm not happy my tax dollars are being used to support this man's child, who even after all this might not become a contributing member to society, but I would fight just as hard as him if I was in his shoes.

I would actually abandon my feelings at the moment and let the child go; even if it's my own child. It's not like they cannot conceive again and bring up a cheaper, normal child.

**Beery Swine** · 06-27-2008, 04:21 AM

I can't answer this questions without qualifications.

Do you think that under all circumstances society should do everything it can to preserve human life?

I can't answer this questions without qualifications.

"Human" life comes in a lot of forms. It's not so much the fact that something happens to be human that causes me to put a higher value on it. If, for instance, a genetically altered housecat could carry on a conversation as good as any adult human, has likes and dislikes that it has refined over the years, thinks a specific political system is preferable over others, enjoys certain TV programs, etc., I'd say it should have every right as an adult human. If, on the other hand, (and this probably won't be popular) one has a choice through some crazy hypothetical moral dilemma to save either the genius cat or a retarded person with an IQ of 60, I'd say the obvious life to save would be the cat's.

So, now that I've explained basically what I value most in an animal (or artificial intelligence, even) I can begin to talk about what lengths society should go to to save a viable intelligence, if only it were that simple. You'd just have to do everything on a case by case basis. I would have taken the doctor's advice on the premature fetus. If there were a similar life/death circumstance involving, say, a 12-year-old student with average test scores, I might do whatever I possibly could to save its life, and might expect society to do the same and be disappointed (to put it lightly) if they did any less. I suppose a cost/benefit analysis should probably be done first, but I think that's how I would react. Maybe I'd just like to think I would do that. Maybe I'm just fooling myself into thinking I'm that good of a person. After all, what have I done about any genocides lately?

Do you think the millions of dollars invested were justified in the attempts to save my cousin?

In this particular situation, no.

Or should there be policies implemented regulating when a life is worth trying to save and when it is not?

Possibly. A system like that would be prone to much abuse by those at the top, but that's the same with anything. I think it might at least be tried to see the results of such a system.

**Eth** · 07-02-2008, 02:58 AM

	Originally Posted by athenian200 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	From an ethical standpoint, I'd say it's impossible to place a value on sentient life.

Every life has value, no matter what standard you hold it to. Contribution, morality, ethics, potential, etc, etc. Most people want to believe we're important, or special, or unique, or exempt from the rules of nature. We're not. We have to survive as a species just like any other species on this planet. Just because we have thumbs and can kill everything else, doesn't mean we're immune from anything. In order to survive, we need to support our societies as a whole and let those weaker or unable to contribute to fall by the way-side. That's how we survive.

	Originally Posted by SiMey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Is there an oversupply of human life? Do the other ants notice when an ant is squashed?

Yes there is an over-supply of human life and ants only notice so far as to not follow the same path so THEY don't die, other than that, no.

It's not society's job to pull the entire load, neither should they be expected to do it forever nor should they do it without expecting something in return. I empathize with the man's plight, but he can't expect everyone else to come in and save him from his misfortune. If he wants that, he should talk to God. But good luck with that.

Someone mentioned that the guy wanted to save his child. From what? Death? Because that is so much worse then being a prisoner of your own body for the next who knows how many years? Attached to machines, dragged around from place to place so you can be poked and prodded while people try to help you? So they can test unknown drugs on you and screw you up even more? O yes, wonderful thing to do to your kid. It's not love, its selfishness.

But that doesn't bar him the right to do so. Even if I don't agree with him. But if he wants to do it, HE should foot the bill, not the rest of us. If he can't afford it, well, that's the risk you take when breeding. It's nature. *shrug*

**Seppuku Savant** · 07-02-2008, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by Eth
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Someone mentioned that the guy wanted to save his child. From what? Death? Because that is so much worse then being a prisoner of your own body for the next who knows how many years? Attached to machines, dragged around from place to place so you can be poked and prodded while people try to help you? So they can test unknown drugs on you and screw you up even more? O yes, wonderful thing to do to your kid. It's not love, its selfishness.

I think that is selfish as well. The child doesn't sound like it's going to have very much of a future in terms of quality of life. It's really immoral for the family to keep the baby alive. There should be a cap on how much the government can spend.

06-25-2008, 05:21 PM	#1
Malotis Member [09%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 397	Several weeks ago my uncle had a child born prematurely. The child was about the size of a dollar bill at birth. My uncle was told by multiple doctors that the child would not survive past a week and to let the child go. My uncle did not heed the advice of the doctors and insisted on doing everything that was possible to keep his child alive. A week passed and then another week and thanks to modern medicine the child managed to stay alive despite the predictions from the doctors on the case. My father is an OB/GYN and I took the opportunity to ask him some questions about the case. I asked him how much money it cost to keep my cousin alive. He estimated that it was easily a 3 million dollar baby. I asked him the probability of the child living past a year. He said it was greater now that the child had survived for this long, but all in all, it was still slim. I asked him that if against the odds the child somehow managed to survive the ordeal then what were the chances the child would live with out permanent mental or physical deficiencies. He said very low and that in all likelihood the child would never be able to function on its own. Finally, I asked him who was paying for the child’s medical bills. He told me the tax payers. Because my uncle doesn’t have medical insurance the child qualified for medicate which paid for everything. Also, even if he had privately covered insurance, how much would cases like this increase the costs for everyone else? I guess I was stunned. Why is society investing millions of dollars into a child that will probably not live, and if it did live would probably need assistance for the rest of its life? To me it almost seems unethical to use resources like this when I consider the Americans who can barely afford the pharmaceutical drugs they need, not to mention, the 50 million or so Americans with out any medical insurance at all. Do you think that under all circumstances society should do everything it can to preserve human life? Do you think the millions of dollars invested were justified in the attempts to save my cousin? Or should there be policies implemented regulating when a life is worth trying to save and when it is not? Last edited by Malotis; 06-25-2008 at 11:33 PM.
Malotis is offline post a comment

06-25-2008, 05:32 PM	#2
athenian200 Member [18%] MBTI: INFJ Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 742	From an ethical standpoint, I'd say it's impossible to place a value on sentient life. From a financial standpoint, I'd say government involvement in an individual's medical expenses should have a financial cap. Probably around $500,000. Individuals should be allowed to spend as much as they feel is right on themselves or their relatives. The government should not operate so liberally, as it has responsibility to all citizens that outweighs their obligation to that one. They shouldn't hurt the rest of the population for the sake of one person, or a few people. In matters of governance, the good of the many should outweigh the good of the few. In one's personal choices, I don't think that's so clear.
athenian200 is offline post a comment

06-25-2008, 05:36 PM	#3
Saint Member [08%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 321	Regardless of the odds, can you ever blame a father for trying to save his son? I'd find that very hard to do. At what cost? How about a second mortgage on the goddamn house? (disclaimer: I don't have kids, I can't say what it's like to be responsible for a child, etc...) Edit: I suppose I should say that I do not agree with holding on to human lives at great expense (to society), but find it hard to blame a father (or similar figure) for making that decision. Last edited by Saint; 06-25-2008 at 05:52 PM.
Saint is offline post a comment

06-25-2008, 05:46 PM	#4
meanlittlechimp Member [13%] MBTI: ENTP Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 539	I agree. If you can save 15 others with the same limited resources, than it's better to let that child die. This is referring to the health care system however and assuming that you would have to let 15 others die in the attempt to save one child. If the parents are wealthy and it was all at their expense, than it's not an issue from a systemic viewpoint. Though it could arguably be one from a moral perspective.
meanlittlechimp is offline post a comment

06-25-2008, 05:49 PM	#5
Max Member [05%] MBTI: INTx Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 204	I think it's outrageous to spend $3 million on a baby the size of a dollar bill and imagine how much more it would have costed if it would have survived (assuming that it wasn't able to function on it's own). Taxpayers having to pay that much for something that isn't going to survive or, if it did survive, would cost a whole lot more (without having the ability to give back) just isn't right, in my opinion. I mean, sure it's human life...but you have to drawn a line somewhere.
Max is offline post a comment

06-25-2008, 06:00 PM	#6
Shakyamuni Member [03%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 133	Spock: The needs of the many... outweigh - Kirk: The needs of the few. Spock: Or the one. The Wrath of Khan There comes a point of diminishing returns, even when dealing with moral issues. It is to easy to simply take the moral highground and claim a human life is priceless etc etc.
Shakyamuni is offline post a comment

06-25-2008, 06:32 PM	#7
Monte314 Core Member [407%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 16,307	Very difficult problem. This is the kind of decision that should be made without "self-interest" in the picture, but that's awful hard.
Monte314 is offline post a comment

06-26-2008, 04:27 AM	#8
Grizzly Member [04%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 194	Denying someone the option of helping their child survive because of a cost comparison is not an effective argument. I'm not happy my tax dollars are being used to support this man's child, who even after all this might not become a contributing member to society, but I would fight just as hard as him if I was in his shoes.
Grizzly is offline post a comment

06-26-2008, 05:45 AM	#9
Homini Lupus Member [30%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 1,228	Theoretically it makes sense. Preserving life of its citizens is the most basic role of the state. Practically it doesn't.
Homini Lupus is offline post a comment

06-27-2008, 04:21 AM	#13
Beery Swine Member [20%] MBTI: INTX Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 822	I can't answer this questions without qualifications. Do you think that under all circumstances society should do everything it can to preserve human life? I can't answer this questions without qualifications. "Human" life comes in a lot of forms. It's not so much the fact that something happens to be human that causes me to put a higher value on it. If, for instance, a genetically altered housecat could carry on a conversation as good as any adult human, has likes and dislikes that it has refined over the years, thinks a specific political system is preferable over others, enjoys certain TV programs, etc., I'd say it should have every right as an adult human. If, on the other hand, (and this probably won't be popular) one has a choice through some crazy hypothetical moral dilemma to save either the genius cat or a retarded person with an IQ of 60, I'd say the obvious life to save would be the cat's. So, now that I've explained basically what I value most in an animal (or artificial intelligence, even) I can begin to talk about what lengths society should go to to save a viable intelligence, if only it were that simple. You'd just have to do everything on a case by case basis. I would have taken the doctor's advice on the premature fetus. If there were a similar life/death circumstance involving, say, a 12-year-old student with average test scores, I might do whatever I possibly could to save its life, and might expect society to do the same and be disappointed (to put it lightly) if they did any less. I suppose a cost/benefit analysis should probably be done first, but I think that's how I would react. Maybe I'd just like to think I would do that. Maybe I'm just fooling myself into thinking I'm that good of a person. After all, what have I done about any genocides lately? Do you think the millions of dollars invested were justified in the attempts to save my cousin? In this particular situation, no. Or should there be policies implemented regulating when a life is worth trying to save and when it is not? Possibly. A system like that would be prone to much abuse by those at the top, but that's the same with anything. I think it might at least be tried to see the results of such a system.
Beery Swine is offline post a comment