https://i.reddituploads.com/16ebf7dfa4cb4a63bb1ef6ade97efa43?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=43def47049db763c04ab2809cd2e743c

Beauchamp and Childress bring up a very interesting point about the value and quality of life. They show that it is possible to quantify human life. There are many different ways of analyzing the value of a human’s life. The two ways that Beauchamp and Childress argue for are discounted future earnings (DFE) and willingness to pay (WTP). DFE is an analysis of a person’s condition and then potential monetary gain that they are expected to earn if they survive. WTP is an analysis of the how much individuals would be willing to pay to reduce the risks of death – either in real life or hypothetically. Both WTP and DFE are heavily monetary based, completely sidelining the persons well being. Beauchamp and Childress then go on to talk about Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs), a system currently being used in the UK, to determine who gets treatment. QALY is mainly based on a cost benefit analysis: balancing the age, type/cost of the procedure, and the amount of years that can be gained if the procedure is done to the patient. (Beauchamp & Childress 237 – 241)

I appreciate the ethical concerns of QALY brought up at the end of the chapter. For the most part I do not agree with Beauchamp and Childress; I believe that life is invaluable. There is already so much inequality in the world—but to separate the value of peoples lives so blatantly only breaks down the characteristics that separate us from other animals. QALY takes a utilitarianism standpoint that heavily biases against those that are old and already impaired. The cost and benefit for treating those who are younger and healthier heavily outweigh treating the old and weak. Younger and Healthier people have more to contribute to society as well as will survive longer after the procedure.

I believe that a balance needs to be achieved, for there are many flaws on both sides. In society today there are two systems that are present: one of universal healthcare and the other of privatized healthcare. In each system respectively, QALY heavily biases the either young or the rich. If following QALY in such a universal health care system – such as in the UK— the younger, healthier generation are often treated before the older solely due to the fact that a younger person will have more of an impact in the world than an older person of the same disease. In a privatized health care system such as ours, the old is no longer biased against, rather it is the poor. Rich people can afford procedures than those who are poor. A perfect, semi-recent example of this is AIDS. Magic Mike was able to afford medication for AID at a time the cost was too great for many another people(PBS). Due to his large amount of wealth, he was able to survive while many others died. Only to further the same point… with the increase in technology the cost of the AIDs pill decreased to an affordable rate for average civilians, until 2015, CorePharma sold the U.S. rights of Daraprim to Turing, which raised the price to a whopping $750 a pill. (CNN) In privatized healthcare system, only the wealthy is safe from death while the commoners must fend for themselves. We need a system that neither is bias against the young nor the rich. We need a system that follows the spirit of the Hippocratic oath. The field of medicine was created to save people; to prioritize anything above saving people would seem counter intuitive.

That being said, there is one place I believe QALY is acceptable to use, the military. In military there are situations where time and resources play a larger factor in the decision making of who get treated and when they get treated. At times three categories were created: those who would live, those who needed help to live, and those who would die. These three categories outline what QALY stands for—they have grouped injured people based on the procedure needed and the outcome/quality of life is received medical attention. This utilitarian standpoint when treating combat related injured helps save the most amount of lives without wasting resources.

Alex

Citations:

Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford UP, 2016. Print. pp 237 – 241.

Hillary Clinton tweeted that the 5,000% spike was “outrageous”, and Amounted to “price Gouging.” Nothing about the Drug Itself Had Changed except This: a New Company — Turing Pharmaceuticals — Had Bought the Rights to Distribute It. The Daily Beast Dubbed Turing’s CEO “the Most Hated Man in America.” “What happened to AIDS drug that spiked 5,000%.” CNNMoney. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2017.

“20 Years After HIV Announcement, Magic Johnson Emphasizes: “I Am Not Cured”.” PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2017.