• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of life?

How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of life?

  • Spend as much my money and effort as is needed to extend or improve life.

    Votes: 2 18.2%

  • As long as it’s not my money, spend whatever is needed.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • It’s a personal choice – your money, your effort, you choose.

    Votes: 5 45.5%

  • It’s a public choice – the public should mandate how much should be spent.

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • Ask the one who’s life is in need of saving.

    Votes: 4 36.4%

  • Prioritize according to age.

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • Prioritize according to past social contribution.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Prioritize according to estimated future social contributions.

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • Life is important, but quality of life is not nearly so important.

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • I’m choosing not to contribute because of the idiocy of the question.

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • Total voters
    11
GreenvilleGrows

GreenvilleGrows

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
566
Reaction score
221
Location
My version of reality
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Everyone dies eventually, but what amount of money or effort (time) is "reasonable" to spend on saving a life or ensuring quality of that life? Is quality even part of the equation? How much public money or effort should be spent? How much of his family's money or effort should be spent? How much of someone's own effort or money should be spent on saving their own life or quality of life?

Life is more important than money. But is all life more important than any amount of money?
 
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

GreenvilleGrows said:
Everyone dies eventually, but what amount of money or effort (time) is "reasonable" to spend on saving a life or ensuring quality of that life? Is quality even part of the equation? How much public money or effort should be spent? How much of his family's money or effort should be spent? How much of someone's own effort or money should be spent on saving their own life or quality of life?

Life is more important than money. But is all life more important than any amount of money?
Click to expand...

Ultimately, I believe this is the fundamental question we are going to have to resolve as a nation if we are ever to get past the current debate about the appropriate level of social spending. How much death, destruction, and disease are we willing to accept as a society vs the amount of taxation that we will accept.

Will we accept low taxes and high risk and instability, high taxes and low risk and instability, or something in between? However, ultimately, this is what almost every argument about government spending in DC boils down to at its most basic level (unless its a pure social issue, like abortion)
 
Last edited:
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

I agree completely with megapropman, but I don't think age should be the only criteria. We need to stop salvaging 22 week old fetuses "born early" with absolutely no hope of any quality of life, as well.
 
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

Pinkie said:
I agree completely with megapropman, but I don't think age should be the only criteria. We need to stop salvaging 22 week old fetuses "born early" with absolutely no hope of any quality of life, as well.
Click to expand...

Harsh comment.
 
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

Pinkie said:
I agree completely with megapropman, but I don't think age should be the only criteria. We need to stop salvaging 22 week old fetuses "born early" with absolutely no hope of any quality of life, as well.
Click to expand...

Lots of parents may disagree with that comment
 
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

This question could easily be rewritten to "How much are our lives worth?"
 
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

lpast said:
Lots of parents may disagree with that comment
Click to expand...

Ever been to a home for the severely developmentally disabled? Ever seen a 45 year old man who has never had a conscious thought in his whole life?

Yes, it's harsh...it's ALL going to be harsh. But if we don't start at least discussing the allocation of resources, someone else will be doing it for us.

And THEN it will be the cancer patient in his 30's who, with help, could live a long and productive life.

Not everyone can have all the medical care science can dream up....that's just a fact.
 
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

Jryan said:
This question could easily be rewritten to "How much are our lives worth?"
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no.
 
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

It's easy to say that if you can pay for it, you can have it. We all realize that life isn't fair. Some are rich, some are poor. Some are healthy, some are sick. It doesn't matter if you're mean or nice. The rain falls on the honest farmer and the dishonest one whether they need it or not. But, once the decision is taken out of the hands of the random (or natural forces) and put into the hands of a policymaker, how does that policymaker determine a value? I, personally, don't think they can because every policymaker can think of someone he/she wouldn't want to lose or be made to suffer. I don't think a doctor can determine value, either, they can only decide whether or not a person will likely live or die, or whether they'll have quality of life or not. They can't determine the relative value of that life any better than the policymaker.
 
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

I think a society should be judged by the way it treats the weakest and most vulnerable and inconvenient of its members.
 
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

the for-profit model of health care has a critical problem, in that health care is an essential service with inelastic demand. the model needs to be changed. i have no problem with for-profit companies being involved in development and delivery of service. however, the public sector needs to provide essential competition in every aspect of the health care system. for example, there is no reason that publicly funded scientists couldn't be developing pharmaceuticals and therapies.

i see a lot of areas in which efficiency could be vastly improved and in which costs could be greatly reduced.
 
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

GreenvilleGrows said:
Everyone dies eventually, but what amount of money or effort (time) is "reasonable" to spend on saving a life or ensuring quality of that life? Is quality even part of the equation? How much public money or effort should be spent? How much of his family's money or effort should be spent? How much of someone's own effort or money should be spent on saving their own life or quality of life?

Life is more important than money. But is all life more important than any amount of money?
Click to expand...

I kind of think that every effort should be made to save and extend someone's life regardless if that person is elderly,crippled,mentally retarded, not born yet or whatever. These efforts help fuel medical advancements. If we just let every person with a bad heart, kidney, or some other essential organ die would any effort be made in trying to develop artificial organs or any effort be made in revolutionize organ transplants and anything else related to it?
 
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

GreenvilleGrows said:
Everyone dies eventually, but what amount of money or effort (time) is "reasonable" to spend on saving a life or ensuring quality of that life? Is quality even part of the equation? How much public money or effort should be spent? How much of his family's money or effort should be spent? How much of someone's own effort or money should be spent on saving their own life or quality of life?

Life is more important than money. But is all life more important than any amount of money?
Click to expand...

Depends on who is paying for it.

Optimally, I'd prefer us not have to decide this based on public good, because a lot of people are gonna be upset when they find out, that they aren't cost efficient to save.
In a public based system, you'd need to formulate an equation to measure how many years of quality of life a person will have per dollar spent.
That means lots of elderly will get the short end of that stick.
 
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

Jryan said:
This question could easily be rewritten to "How much are our lives worth?"
Click to expand...

My life is worth an infinite amount of money, just like everyone else. :mrgreen:
That's the problem, no one wants to be worth the least.
 
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

GreenvilleGrows said:
Everyone dies eventually, but what amount of money or effort (time) is "reasonable" to spend on saving a life or ensuring quality of that life? Is quality even part of the equation? How much public money or effort should be spent? How much of his family's money or effort should be spent? How much of someone's own effort or money should be spent on saving their own life or quality of life?

Life is more important than money. But is all life more important than any amount of money?
Click to expand...

That's the big question, isn't it? If someone has a terminal illness, should society be guilted into carrying-coals-to-Newcastle ad infiinitum? In my opinion, no. Very soon we're going to be forced to carefully examine this issue as a nation. We're so technologically advanced that we can keep people alive waaaay past their expiration date. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. But, of course, if one has the personal resources to plug themselves in and wait to dry up and blow away, then let 'em have at it. Medicare? Medicaid? Health insurance policies? We've got to get sensible and draw some lines.
 
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

GreenvilleGrows said:
It's easy to say that if you can pay for it, you can have it. We all realize that life isn't fair. Some are rich, some are poor. Some are healthy, some are sick. It doesn't matter if you're mean or nice. The rain falls on the honest farmer and the dishonest one whether they need it or not. But, once the decision is taken out of the hands of the random (or natural forces) and put into the hands of a policymaker, how does that policymaker determine a value? I, personally, don't think they can because every policymaker can think of someone he/she wouldn't want to lose or be made to suffer. I don't think a doctor can determine value, either, they can only decide whether or not a person will likely live or die, or whether they'll have quality of life or not. They can't determine the relative value of that life any better than the policymaker.
Click to expand...

Refusing to participate in the discussion is itself a decision.....a decision to leave it all up to someone else.
 
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

MaggieD said:
That's the big question, isn't it? If someone has a terminal illness, should society be guilted into carrying-coals-to-Newcastle ad infiinitum? In my opinion, no. Very soon we're going to be forced to carefully examine this issue as a nation. We're so technologically advanced that we can keep people alive waaaay past their expiration date. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. But, of course, if one has the personal resources to plug themselves in and wait to dry up and blow away, then let 'em have at it. Medicare? Medicaid? Health insurance policies? We've got to get sensible and draw some lines.
Click to expand...

We can't adequately care for the morbidly ill as it is.....nursing homes are full, and their staff are way underpaid and understaffed. What do you think will happen in ten or twenty years, when there are 5 or 50 times as many patients in need of this care?
 
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

Harry Guerrilla said:
My life is worth an infinite amount of money, just like everyone else. :mrgreen:
That's the problem, no one wants to be worth the least.
Click to expand...

I'm more'n happy to DNR myself even now, at 58. I'm not suicidal but I am old enough to have seen friends "do everything to fight for life".

No thankies, not for me.
 
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

Pinkie said:
I'm more'n happy to DNR myself even now, at 58. I'm not suicidal but I am old enough to have seen friends "do everything to fight for life".

No thankies, not for me.
Click to expand...

You've got 30 years on me.
I've seen some people have their lives extended past the point of realistically good outcomes.

On the other hand, I enjoy living so much, that I'd rather have other people spend as much money as possibly to continue that trend.
 
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

jamesrage said:
I kind of think that every effort should be made to save and extend someone's life regardless if that person is elderly,crippled,mentally retarded, not born yet or whatever. These efforts help fuel medical advancements. If we just let every person with a bad heart, kidney, or some other essential organ die would any effort be made in trying to develop artificial organs or any effort be made in revolutionize organ transplants and anything else related to it?
Click to expand...

This is not a reality-based option, sadly.
 
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

Harry Guerrilla said:
You've got 30 years on me.
I've seen some people have their lives extended past the point of realistically good outcomes.

On the other hand, I enjoy living so much, that I'd rather have other people spend as much money as possibly to continue that trend.
Click to expand...

You are the 30-something who can continue a productive life, if saved, that I referenced earlier.

BTW, I only have the one child and am just FULL of as-yet-ungiven advice....would you like some?

ROFL!
 
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

Pinkie said:
You are the 30-something who can continue a productive life, if saved, that I referenced earlier.

BTW, I only have the one child and am just FULL of as-yet-ungiven advice....would you like some?

ROFL!
Click to expand...

I was partially raised by my grandpa, so I actually enjoy the advise of sages very much. :)
 
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

Harry Guerrilla said:
I was partially raised by my grandpa, so I actually enjoy the advise of sages very much. :)
Click to expand...

Okay, well, for starters, never eat margarine. That whole brohaha about butter was bull****, and butter is delicious.

:)
 
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

This is a really tough question to answer. Because as much as everyone would like it to be otherwise, human life has a monetary value.

For me, it's a matter of diminishing returns. For example, I think nearly everyone would agree that a treatment that cost $100 and extended the human lifespan for 10 years was a good thing (at least on the individual level). Likewise nearly everyone would agree that a treatment that cost $1,000,000 and extended the human lifespan by a week was a waste of money.

I do believe in a single-payer healthcare system so in terms of what I feel it is acceptable for the government to spend to extend someone's life, I don't know if I can put an exact number on it, but I'm thinking something around 50 grand a year or so. As in 50 grand would extend a person's life by a year. If someone's spending their own money on top of that, then let them spend whatever they want.
 
Re: How much effort & expense is "reasonable" to save someone's life or quality of li

Pinkie said:
Okay, well, for starters, never eat margarine. That whole brohaha about butter was bull****, and butter is delicious.

:)
Click to expand...

I love butter. :mrgreen:
Makes everything taste better.

That is what I primarily cook with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom