Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (67481)	12/19/1999 10:10:00 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

A baby, a human child, with loving parents and family. You want to talk about cost. A child who never had the fun of playing. Growing up. Sadness and money don't belong in the same post. You talk about your handicapped child. Is he costing society money?

To: epicure who wrote (67481)	12/20/1999 2:53:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

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.