2 ms·

The statements sound clear, and seems to pretty much match our intuition about how it should work. But perhaps incomplete in the math? Since you are not alone i

The statements sound clear, and seems to pretty much match our intuition about how it should work. But perhaps incomplete in the math? Since you are not alone in saving 4000 people, but that 4000 people are saving 3999 lives. Or that you are saving 3999/4000 of a person, or roughly one person per donation. So the expected value of the profit of a donation is approximately 1 person saved. But the expected value of the cost of that is that 1 of 4000 people is personally sacrificed. Then, taking the ratio of those, we get that the expected value for social-value over the personal-cost is about 4000-to-1 (approximate, since this assumes that the life lost is of equal value to the average value of the lives saved). Or that society values the donation being about 4000x the value of your life. (your own personal utility function might disagree however)

tux3 4y ago
A more precise model still might be to try to factor in the expected loss in healthy years for the donor, and the average lifespan gain of a kidney recipient. If you pull a child out of the way of a speeding truck, you've saved their life without losing any quality of life for yourself or for them. That's a "perfect" life save. Organ transplant is more subtle. If you already plan to donate your kidneys at death, donating one of them when younger seems less obviously good. It'd seem worthwhile to build a more detailed model before going through with it.
cheese_goddess 4y ago
Edit: I need to learn to summarisy my thoughts better. What I'm saying below and above is that the expected value of live kidney donation to society is misapplied to calculate the value of live kidney donation to the donor. We tacitly accept as a society that some people will die so that others may get a new kidney. That has nothing to do with the value that one person donating a kidney places over another person's health (and not life, because you're not "saving" lives). Although I understand your comment much better than the OP -4000 to 1, not 1/4000- those maths don't make any sense at all to me. First of all, nobody saves anyone by donating a kidney. You certainly don't "save" an entire person that way. You add some quality-adjusted years of life to their life expectancy, but that's all. And they're not that many, average is about 10. So at best you can say that each person donating a kidney is "helping" or "supporting" one other person. So it makes no sense to say that 3999/4000th of a person is "saved" or "helped" or whatever by one's _personal_ sacrifice. If I was the person dying while donating my kidney, my death would not equal 4000 people living, or living longer. It would mean my life ending for one person's life lasting a little while longer. One person! That's how many people are directly affected by one person's donation of a kidney. To claim that it's 4000 instead, is just sophistry with fractions. Or rather, it's an oversimplification because understanding the trade-off between one entire life and 10-ish quality adjusted years of life is too hard and does not easily support self-aggrandising statements. Look at it the other way: you won't let 4000 people die by refusing to donate a kidney. But this is more or less what is claimed in the two opinions above. Everydobdy who does not donate a kidney is an asshole who values their own life more than that of 4000 strangers.

tux3 4y ago

A more precise model still might be to try to factor in the expected loss in healthy years for the donor, and the average lifespan gain of a kidney recipient. If you pull a child out of the way of a speeding truck, you've saved their life without losing any quality of life for yourself or for them. That's a "perfect" life save. Organ transplant is more subtle. If you already plan to donate your kidneys at death, donating one of them when younger seems less obviously good. It'd seem worthwhile to build a more detailed model before going through with it.

cheese_goddess 4y ago

Edit: I need to learn to summarisy my thoughts better. What I'm saying below and above is that the expected value of live kidney donation to society is misapplied to calculate the value of live kidney donation to the donor. We tacitly accept as a society that some people will die so that others may get a new kidney. That has nothing to do with the value that one person donating a kidney places over another person's health (and not life, because you're not "saving" lives). Although I understand your comment much better than the OP -4000 to 1, not 1/4000- those maths don't make any sense at all to me. First of all, nobody saves anyone by donating a kidney. You certainly don't "save" an entire person that way. You add some quality-adjusted years of life to their life expectancy, but that's all. And they're not that many, average is about 10. So at best you can say that each person donating a kidney is "helping" or "supporting" one other person. So it makes no sense to say that 3999/4000th of a person is "saved" or "helped" or whatever by one's _personal_ sacrifice. If I was the person dying while donating my kidney, my death would not equal 4000 people living, or living longer. It would mean my life ending for one person's life lasting a little while longer. One person! That's how many people are directly affected by one person's donation of a kidney. To claim that it's 4000 instead, is just sophistry with fractions. Or rather, it's an oversimplification because understanding the trade-off between one entire life and 10-ish quality adjusted years of life is too hard and does not easily support self-aggrandising statements. Look at it the other way: you won't let 4000 people die by refusing to donate a kidney. But this is more or less what is claimed in the two opinions above. Everydobdy who does not donate a kidney is an asshole who values their own life more than that of 4000 strangers.