Is there a dollar value on a human life?

[McCulloch]

This leads me to an interesting question.....Do you think that we, as a society, should place a dollar value on a human life. In other words is there a limit per person that should be spend to correct the problem (if indeed, it can be corrected?).

Indeed, an interesting question. Limited financial resources. Competing demands. How much should we spend to save lives? How do we justify spending on other stuff when lives are at stake? Is there a dollar value on a human life? How is it determined?

[Confused]

This leads me to an interesting question.....Do you think that we, as a society, should place a dollar value on a human life. In other words is there a limit per person that should be spend to correct the problem (if indeed, it can be corrected?).

Indeed, an interesting question. Limited financial resources. Competing demands. How much should we spend to save lives? How do we justify spending on other stuff when lives are at stake? Is there a dollar value on a human life? How is it determined?

This may seem like a harsh response, but in medicine, we look at the cost of treatment, the percentage of likelihood of a meaningful recovery, and the long term burden to society..... Then we compare that to the cost of a lawsuit by the family. Whichever is less, wins.

[dusk]

I think there is also especially in movies & literature with their: "there is no price tag on life" a bit two much fixation on a beating heart.
If you spent all your money on keeping everybody alive at some point it would seriously impact the life of all the living. What is it worth to live a life worth living? If we are all enslaved in hard work but our hospitals have all the means to keep our hearts beating for 200 years what is really the point.
I personally would prefer some nice holidays in summer while I am still living and dying sooner compared to living 10 additional years in a wheel chair after a life of hardest work.

[andrewk]

Yes, government health bodies have to do this all the time. If they didn't the health service would soon be bankrupt and then everybody would be worse off.

Just google QALYS (quality-adjusted life years).

In the UK national health service QALYS appear to have a significant role in some decisions - similar to what Confused said, except without the lawsuit element, which is probably only a big issue in litigophilic countries like the US.

See for example this BBC article .

[Ernestalice]

Yes for the length, and no for the worth. I see ppl's lives are worth the same. But it doesn't mean I can lengthen it without money or help everyone without money. Maybe I could help the inside (mentality), but not physically.

[bluethread]

Yes, government health bodies have to do this all the time. If they didn't the health service would soon be bankrupt and then everybody would be worse off.

Just google QALYS (quality-adjusted life years).

In the UK national health service QALYS appear to have a significant role in some decisions - similar to what Confused said, except without the lawsuit element, which is probably only a big issue in litigophilic countries like the US.

See for example this BBC article .

You can't tell me that politics doesn't also play a part. Do you contend that the PM and Sir Paul stand in line like everybody else and the decisions in those cases are made based one the QALYS?

[andrewk]

I think the idea of QALYS is that they can be used to place a value on the benefits of a medical intervention to the recipient. In the case of people in positions of great power or influence, their value to others may also come into play. For example, if Justin Bieber were grievously ill and broke (hard to imagine, I know), I'm sure his fans would be prepared to contribute many millions of dollars to pay for surgery to save his life, because of his value to them. It's even possible the Canadian government might be prepared to pay for his treatment, irrespective of what the QALYS indicated, because of the value of his potential future earnings to the Canadian economy.

The British government might make a similar argument in relation to the value to Britain of avoiding the Prime Minister being incapacitated, or having to be replaced. There is also the likelihood that a PM would be wealthy enough to have private health insurance (if such a thing exists in Britain), and so would not have to wait in the public health system queue.

[bluethread]

So, are we saying that the value of a human life is not relavent to whether there should be private or public health care? Isn't it more of an argument regarding who should be doing the evaluation?

[andrewk]

Hello bluethread. In relation to your question of public vs private healthcare, I don't think the value put on human life is particularly relevant. In fact, private vs public health care is not one question but several:

1. Should the government provide health care?
2. Should companies be allowed to offer insurance to provide better health care, outside the public system, to those willing and able to pay.
3. If the government decides Yes to 2, should it provide any funding for the private health care, in recognition of its taking cost away from the public system.
.. probably several other questions to follow from these.

1 is usually debated in terms of whether a certain level of health care is a basic human right, and/or whether our society will be 'better' (eg more united, harmonious, prosperous) if some public health care is provided without charge to the recipients.
2 is a question of freedom. There are arguments in favour of banning private provision of health care in a country where a public health care system exists, but the arguments against such a ban are strong and I'd imagine very few governments would be prepared to do this.
3 is a question of how government revenue should be spent and is often argued as a contest between spending according to need on the one hand and spending according to what's perceived as fair on the other.

These are much higher level issues than that of determining whether a particular medical intervention should be provided by a particular public hospital. I don't think the value ascribed to an individual human life would figure significantly in considering them.

[bluethread]

I do not think it should be a factor, but it is quite often used as one when attempts are made to establish a public health system or expand that system, ie establishing the funding of that "basic human right".