At 01:34 PM 7/19/01, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
> >
> >> Ok, and I am just pointing that ==maybe== using numbers
> >> in the subject of human life may have hidden costs that
> >> should be computed. Namely: that by using numbers in
> >> this subject the society may become more callous.
> >
> > I do have one problem with this. Let's take two oposite and
> > hypothetical cases:
> >
> > Subject A: A very wealthy old person needing a very complicated and
> > expensive treatment to live maybe 1 or 2 years longer, gets this
> > treatment because this person can pay for it. So a lot of resources
> > are put into this person because of his/her money. Resources that
> > cannot be used elsewhere.
> > Subject B: A child needs a simple treatment that will result in a
> > perfectly normal lifespan for this child that could die otherwise, but
> > won't get that treatment because the no one can pay for it.
> >
> > And now please explain to me ethics and cost again in relation to
> > death....
> >
>What do you propose? That the g*vernment should decide, and
>take the money away from Subject A so that Subject B survives?
>
>IMHO, this is the worse solution for the long run, because
>a society that permits those kinds of decision is
>giving the g*vernment the power to decide on Life and Death.
>
>Worse: you let the g*vernment declare that some lives [for
>example, an old man's final 2 years of life] have a lesser
>value than other lives.
>
>The next step might be letting the g*vernment mass-sterilize
>individuals that carry bad genes, or place an upper limit
>to the age of the citizens, etc
Or place an upper limit to the number of children a woman may have.
-- Ronn! :)
