When is a life unworthy of life?

[Atheist-Lite]

With Camerons seeming devotion to looking after the families & carers of the long term disabled by removing their respite allocations I wonder if there is a point where it would save money to send some severely disabled on a one way train ticket to Switzerland? is there a point, a absolute value to human life? if it costs a hundred thousand to save ten lives using medical intervention but that hundred thousand is being used to keep a human shell, a dementia sufferer for instance, alive then isn't it better to spend a hundred thousand to restore and maximise the quality of life of the many over the one? It is a silly thing to bring back ghosts from the past with this - it is a modern debate and we are much more sensible these days.

[Clinton Huxley]

Basically, you are talking about health care rationing, which of course happens all the time.

If wonder drug x is 10% better than old drug y but costs twice as much, is it worth it?

[Millefleur]

Personally I wouldn't want to be kept alive if I were an empty shell, but how do you judge who is truly an empty shell? The other half has worked in residential care homes with teens in a pretty much vegetative state, with minimal physical control, and it really is hard to tell if the 'lights are on' in their heads or not. These were kids who had been dumped as babies, whose family never visited or did annually out of a sense of duty, whose care home bought them token birthday and christmas presents, because no one bar a small team of carers gives a crap or would notice them gone. Is expensive, life-long round the clock care justified by the momentary flicker of conciousness you think you may possibly have seen? Yep.. to me, at least.

Cameron can go fuck his japs eye with something pointy. We can say he should understand because he's been there with a disabled child and suffered the heartache of losing him, but like fuck he understands, he has the money to provide care for a family member with or without a decent job, had his son been alive he'd never have been forced to make the choice to put him in care.

[Thinking Aloud]

This is a really tricky subject. On the one hand, if you've not had personal experience it's hard to get a good grasp of everything involved; on the other it's usually socially unacceptable to express any view which would call into question the "value" of an individual life.

Like Mille, I wouldn't want my body kept alive if my mind had gone. To do so would just be a waste - and a futile exercise in hope for whoever was keeping it going. However, even if my mind were fully cognitive but just completely disconnected from my body, I imagine it would be (certainly after a little while) torture to be kept alive in there for years, still thinking, still dreaming, still wishing, but in sensory-deprived, solitary confinement, completely impotent to do anything, "just in case".

I suspect that, even though humanity tends towards empathy and caring (especially for those who can't help themselves), the concept of human life as "sacred" has a lot to do with our attitudes to the value of life. We assign an objective value of "priceless" to a human life (except in war for some reason) regardless of the condition of that life, however the only real value a life has is the subjective value we place on our own and on those of the people around us. It's almost selfish in a way - "I would be sad if you died," is what it comes down to ultimately, "so I will do everything I can to keep you alive." However, our unwillingness to allow lives to end to the extent of forcing them to continue as long as possible, "just in case", and building laws that require this to be the case more often than not, I think reflect the supposed "sacredness" of humanity. Of course, many of us would be dead by now, but for the help of medicine, so at what point do we say "enough - no more assistance"?

Tricky. I don't know the answer.

But human life isn't sacred. It's not special. We're here, and then we're gone, and so is every other living thing.

[klr]

With Camerons seeming devotion to looking after the families & carers of the long term disabled by removing their respite allocations I wonder if there is a point where it would save money to send some severely disabled on a one way train ticket to Switzerland? is there a point, a absolute value to human life? if it costs a hundred thousand to save ten lives using medical intervention but that hundred thousand is being used to keep a human shell, a dementia sufferer for instance, alive then isn't it better to spend a hundred thousand to restore and maximise the quality of life of the many over the one? It is a silly thing to bring back ghosts from the past with this - it is a modern debate and we are much more sensible these days.

This is the point: Science has given us the technical ability to offer medical care that would keep many people alive* that would otherwise long since be dead, but at a financial cost that cannot be supported by society if it were to be widely applied.

I would like to know what proportion of (say) GDP is spent on medical care now as opposed to 20, 50, 100 years ago, and the comparative breakdown of spending in different areas.

*Or improve quality of life, which is an even more awkward area.

[Pappa]

This is a really tricky subject. On the one hand, if you've not had personal experience it's hard to get a good grasp of everything involved; on the other it's usually socially unacceptable to express any view which would call into question the "value" of an individual life.

It's something that is done every day, in a crude way and often unfairly. We appear to have decided it's ok to spend millions on certain cancer drugs, but we spend comparatively little on Children's Social Services, so usually only emergency cases are dealt with. The decisions are often arbitrary and very unfair too. Far more people die from heart disease in the UK, yet cancer treatment get's twice the funding (or thereabouts). I would prefer it if the government took the bull by the horns and costed it in detail. Why spend £5,000,000 on one person's life, if 1000 other lives are lost due to that cost? It's not "nice", but nor is dying or living a substandard life because someone else got more than their fair share.

[Thinking Aloud]

This is a really tricky subject. On the one hand, if you've not had personal experience it's hard to get a good grasp of everything involved; on the other it's usually socially unacceptable to express any view which would call into question the "value" of an individual life.

It's something that is done every day, in a crude way and often unfairly. We appear to have decided it's ok to spend millions on certain cancer drugs, but we spend comparatively little on Children's Social Services, so usually only emergency cases are dealt with. The decisions are often arbitrary and very unfair too. Far more people die from heart disease in the UK, yet cancer treatment get's twice the funding (or thereabouts). I would prefer it if the government took the bull by the horns and costed it in detail. Why spend £5,000,000 on one person's life, if 1000 other lives are lost due to that cost? It's not "nice", but nor is dying or living a substandard life because someone else got more than their fair share.

That's true... I was initially thinking of "value" in terms of disabilities for that remark, as per the OP, but yes - where do you draw a line, and on what basis?

[Pappa]

This is a really tricky subject. On the one hand, if you've not had personal experience it's hard to get a good grasp of everything involved; on the other it's usually socially unacceptable to express any view which would call into question the "value" of an individual life.

It's something that is done every day, in a crude way and often unfairly. We appear to have decided it's ok to spend millions on certain cancer drugs, but we spend comparatively little on Children's Social Services, so usually only emergency cases are dealt with. The decisions are often arbitrary and very unfair too. Far more people die from heart disease in the UK, yet cancer treatment get's twice the funding (or thereabouts). I would prefer it if the government took the bull by the horns and costed it in detail. Why spend £5,000,000 on one person's life, if 1000 other lives are lost due to that cost? It's not "nice", but nor is dying or living a substandard life because someone else got more than their fair share.

That's true... I was initially thinking of "value" in terms of disabilities for that remark, as per the OP, but yes - where do you draw a line, and on what basis?

Simplistically, it would be most fair to say that all humans have equal value, work out the threshold at which treating a given person would take away too much treatment from others to be cost effective and deny treatment for anything above that threshold.

A more complex system would take into account the person's potential value to society after treatment too, as they could provide more in tax revenue to treat others if they were fully able to work, etc.. However, that would immediately raise the problem that a disabled person would have less value than an able bodied person.

Any system like the above would probably be too harsh for the public to accept (even though it's something we do in a non-explicit way already). Perhaps that's why we have this arbitrary system directed by public opinion, media attention and emotive responses to society's ills.

[Millefleur]

My brothers care costs the council/taxpayer approx £1000/week, £52000 a year. We started receiving this amount about two years ago and he's expected to live to 30, so he'll cost you/the taxpayer around £624000 from 18 to 30. This employs myself and my partner full time and 3 part time carers who are his friends, old family friends, and are students. We all pay tax on this obviously. Add to that the hospitalisation he needed as a baby, free nappies until he was about 7, physiotherapy (no longer has this), free equipment/wheelchairs and maintenance until a couple of years ago, free dental care and free prescriptions for reflux medication and calorie boosting, free schooling and transport to and from til he was 9 (after that he attended a trustee funded boarding school 'til 18) and incapacity benefit which pays for food, clothes and small luxuries and you're looking at one hell of a bill.

We've already received a letter to say some of our budget will be cut, hopefully only by £150 a week, which we will have to absorb by laying off one part time carer and making up the extra hours ourselves. If the budget is cut drastically in the next few years he'd have to go into a care home and besides the upset (to put it lightly) that would cause him and therefore us it would also cost the taxpayer between £2000 and £3000 a week for care alone (he'd still receive all the free medical care and some benefits). So you're looking at a yearly bill for care alone closer to £104000-£156000 per year, but his life expectancy will drop so you might save some cash there.

So, is the life of someone unable to contribute to society worth well over £1000000? Would it make a difference if he weren't mentally aware, intelligent? What if he wasn't? Does it make a difference if you know his condition was at least partially caused by a negligent doctor employed by the NHS? Would that £1000000 be better spent on research into childhood leukemia for example? 'Sorry kid, I know you're an intelligent young man but you can't wipe your own arse and are costing us a bomb. Mrs Chavette up the road who's never worked a day in her life and has 7 children? Yeah, but she can run.. Hold still now'

Pass me the needle, the fucker ate my chocolate mousse!

[Thinking Aloud]

Thanks for this detail, Mille. As I say, it's really hard to grasp what's involved and all the details if, like me, one doesn't have any experience of coping with disabilities.

[cowiz]

A right is only a right if it's a choice. If we have a "right to life" we have a right to choose whether our life is worth continuing. Don't we?

[Cunt]

My brothers care costs the council/taxpayer approx £1000/week, £52000 a year. ...<snip>...

If the budget is cut drastically in the next few years he'd have to go into a care home and besides the upset (to put it lightly) that would cause him and therefore us it would also cost the taxpayer between £2000 and £3000 a week for care alone (he'd still receive all the free medical care and some benefits). So you're looking at a yearly bill for care alone closer to £104000-£156000 per year, but his life expectancy will drop so you might save some cash there.

Thanks for pointing this out about institutional care. It is ALWAYS found to be cheaper to support people in their communities.

So, is the life of someone unable to contribute to society worth well over £1000000? Would it make a difference if he weren't mentally aware, intelligent? What if he wasn't? Does it make a difference if you know his condition was at least partially caused by a negligent doctor employed by the NHS? Would that £1000000 be better spent on research into childhood leukemia for example? 'Sorry kid, I know you're an intelligent young man but you can't wipe your own arse and are costing us a bomb. Mrs Chavette up the road who's never worked a day in her life and has 7 children? Yeah, but she can run.. Hold still now'

Pass me the needle, the fucker ate my chocolate mousse!

I don't know exactly where I stand on the original question. I think a life is unworthy of life when the wearer says so, and does something about it, but that's more of a dodge than an answer.

I would say that everyone is worth keeping alive as long as we are rich enough to do so. When we start running out of wealth? I would draw the line at 'will to live'. If someone has no movement, activity or responsiveness, it may be okay to 'pull the plug'. Not kill them, but remove support and let nature take it's course.
If someone shows a will to live, let them. I remember seeing a movie once where a hero dies from arrow wounds, but is still seeing. His chum comes over and closes his eyes, seeing that he is dead.
Don't EVER do that to me. If all I have left is a few more seconds of blurry vision - I WANT IT! I want all of it.

I have a friend who gets expensive treatments for her medical condition. She has expressed a few times that she doesn't think one life is worth what they are spending on her. She also expressed that she can't simply stop going (she would be committing suicide). I don't mind having a bit more bills to keep her kind, and Millefleur's brother, too.

[Millefleur]

Thanks for this detail, Mille. As I say, it's really hard to grasp what's involved and all the details if, like me, one doesn't have any experience of coping with disabilities.

It could be much worse, as it is for many families. If my mum were still alive my parents would be doing as they'd done previously and as they'd planned to do again once he'd left full time education - juggle his care between them while both trying to work and keep the home they'd bought and redesigned to be his 'forever home'. His care has always been a huge strain - my mum used to have to give up work and start taking anti-depressants every holiday and it had an effect on us as siblings too, I've always grown up with little attention and became very independent in my own little world while my younger sister felt she never got the attention she deserved before he came along and has always been very needy, resentful and attention seeking. The situation changed when my mum died and my dad didn't know how he'd cope, he'd have been unable to work and care for my brother 24 hours a day by himself and as a parent wouldn't have been paid as a carer. They viewed care homes but my brother wasn't happy with any of them, each one he was shown housed teens with similar conditions but who were child-like or vegetative while my brother is like any other young man, just trapped in a useless body, and resented the idea of being made to sleep 12 hhours a day from 8am til 8pm, spending his waking hours in soft play equipment or visiting aquariums. He became very distressed until his social worker agreed we had an exceptional case, but it still took a year to fight for a budget that would pay an actual wage and not a pittance which would have effectively seen me taking on a third, adult, child for nothing. It's a huge sum of money, I feel embarrassed by it sometimes, but we're far from raking it in and can't afford paid holidays or other benefits afforded to other workers.

A right is only a right if it's a choice. If we have a "right to life" we have a right to choose whether our life is worth continuing. Don't we?

I think this is my position too, and as we can't get that decision from someone unable to communicate we can't assume or decide for them.

[Millefleur]

A family my parents have known for years have found themselves suddenly in our position - their 22 year old son and his girlfriend were involved in a hit and run in some South American country last year, the girlfriend died and their son was in a serious condition that nearly got to the 'do we pull the plug?' scenario. He regained consciousness after 6 weeks but is in a child like state, they don't know if he'll ever remember what happened to him or wonder where his girlfriend is. He's home now, struggling to communicate and needs constant care. You could say his parents are 'lucky' that they're well off and his dad retired from a top council job last year with a huge payout and pension - their world has fallen apart but at least they'll never be forced to make the choice to abandon him because of money.

[Cunt]

Quoting 'Institution Watch' (because the Fall 2010 edition is not online yet)
"...Recently a young man from Yellowknife with intellectual and other disabilities was sent to one of the residences at the Hay River Campus for a temporary period of evaluation, even though he expressly wrote that he wanted to remain in Yellowknife to be with his friends and work mates. People First of Yellowknife along with YKACL are monitoring the status of this placement to ensure that this young man's wishes of returning to Yellowknife are horoured."

Basically, it didn't matter WHAT this guy said, he was being moved to a different town to be placed in a 'campus' (institution!). They do this to criminals, too. Maybe criminals deserve to be moved to institutions and isolated from their friends for extended periods of time.