4 ms·
> years of expected life lost is the more important metric imo. If you start doing this, you start valuing peoples lives differently, which is a horrible thing
by Sebb767 5y ago
> years of expected life lost is the more important metric imo.
If you start doing this, you start valuing peoples lives differently, which is a horrible thing. Going just from this, you could say that an Afghan citizen is worth about 82% of an US citizen (64 vs 78 years life expectancy) or that burning down a whole palliative care unit is less bad than shooting a 20 year old (or 16 year old Afghan).
I can see where you are coming from, but this is really not a good road to go down.
- amscanne 5y agoI hate to break it to you, but “quality-adjusted life years” [1] is already a standard metric for evaluating medical interventions. While the whole “death panel” thing is exaggerated, it is necessary that insurers (incl. single payer governments) have quantitative ways to evaluate different treatments. They won’t throw infinite $$ at every treat that is expected to add a tiny amount to your life. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year