Please X and Ish cool it. I know there is an argument about fixed resources but it is a purely theoretical mistake. The supply of medical resources is certainly elastic enough to take care of the needs of a 13 pound child without depriving anyone else of anything significant, maybe even the resources for all of the nine year old 13 pound children in the world. Despite my being an economist, and a radically rational one at that, I don't think the euthanasia of such children is desirable if the parents are willing to care for it with some professional medical help. I believe it is their choice, and not the state's. The alternative, that of public care for such a child is another matter indeed. We are talking several hundred thousand dollars a year, which would necessarily be taken from many other children with need. It would save the lives of 50,000 children suffering from dehydration and diarrhea in Bangladesh. But if the parents can care for and support the child, then that is their decision, not mine.
In my utility function, the welfare of every person (and most other wild mammals and birds) appears and counts each for 1 (say 1/256 for each rice bird). If keeping one old man alive another year requires resources that would keep a thousand children alive for one more year I say let the old geezer go. The odds are too disproportionate. If we can take money from care of the old, exhausted, comatose people and use it help children get a healthy start I say hurrah! But I would not let Tracy's greatgrandmother's (86 and profoundly afflicted with Alzheimer's disease) life be sacrificed to extend Tracy's. It never came to that directly, but exchanges like this take place in society every day. Society, remote uncaring makes the decisions that individuals must not be called upon to make. |
