From: dougnews@access.digex.com (Doug Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Protest
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 02:12:37 GMT

In article <foo.042759.7655@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>
>I think that there are two issues here that are being confused.
>The first is placing a monetary value on life so that one may make
>a decision on whether to *actively* kill that person.  That is, if
>a certain monetary value is not met, then the person is executed
>or killed.  The other is placing a monetary value on expenditures
>necessary to *prevent* a human death.  This is placing a monetary
>value in the passive sense.  I maintain that the two situations
>are different and should not be mixed.  Although we quite
>frquently do the latter, I don't believe that we have ever had a
>policy of doing the former.  Perhaps you have an example of the
>former being done? 

I am not sure that it can be quite that cut and dried;  I don't
think that there is anyone keeping track of some "economic worth"
on people and killing them if they run a negative balance (makes
me wonder how much overdraft protection costs!).

Still, if it will help with the analysis, I will note that MUCH 
more money and effort will be spent on *saving* one person who is
in a bad situation than will be spent for preventative measures.
The calculations seem a lot colder I presume when they are numbers
on the paper, rather than a small child who has falled down a 
pipe shaft.

As a counter to that, it is obvious that unlimited resources will
*not* be made available in such a case.  The hostages in Lebanon
being an example where a chance *could* have been taken, money and
lives and situation put at risk in an attempt to recover, with some
chance of loss, but it was not done.  It was considered, but judged
too costly.

Coal miners trapped after explosions, even when it is know they are 
alive, are sometimes abandoned because of the level of expense it 
would take to get them out.  These are hard and ugly facts, and 
they are generally couched in discussions about additional lives
that might be lost in a rescue attempts, but a billion or two 
dollars would have a good chance to build a special system to help
these situations; someone decides not to spend that money.

To some degree or another, the financial angle always ends up
in here.

>But it could be the end result of people's lives are reduced to merely
>money.

I can't ever see it happening where peoples lives are reduced to
mearly money (there might be special cases to this though; I am not
comfortable with the absolute statement).  However, issues like 
how much money to spend on research on which desease come pretty 
close to this.  Example and fun quiz for our home listeners follows!

Given heart desease, cancer and AIDS, and given that the government
says "here is a lump sum, this is all that we have to put toward 
this type of research" how do you decide how much goes to each?

Remember the details that we have outlines above and in previous
messages, apply them, and then see if you come out with what is 
really happening...

-- 
Doug Humphrey    Express Access Public Access Internet   Voice (301) 220-2020
doug@digex.com   Dialup: (301) 220-0462 Login as "new"   Email info@digex.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I say it again, in the land of the free; use your freedom of choice." -DEVO
Newsgroups: dc.general