4 ms·

I don't agree that it is nothing. 2 millions, if applied properly, could do good for many people. Take ten children from poverty, give ten children chance to ge

I don't agree that it is nothing. 2 millions, if applied properly, could do good for many people. Take ten children from poverty, give ten children chance to get a good education, etc. There is always a some kind of moral dilemma: should you spent millions to try to extend extremely I'll person or help with that money to some healthy poor children?

dopa42365 3y ago
It's possible to do both :)
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  How? Society does not have unlimited resources. Especially the one that extremely ill people need, humans.
  - huytersd 3y ago
    People with sickle cell already cost the taxpayer a lot of money over their lifetimes. I wouldn’t be surprised if it cost more than this treatment.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      Of course, in that case it is simple. I imagine dopa42365 was referring to a scenario where there was an alternative way to spend the money.
- ponector 3y ago
  Possible in theory. But real life shows neither will be done in enough quantities.
esturk 3y ago
Such a crass statement. What if you're the patient? Would you spend 2 million to live 30-40 more years? It's so easy to step back and weight the lives of other as if you're making the decision for others.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  The $2M represents a certain portion of society’s productivity, which is not unlimited.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    Yes, but spending it preventing debilitating disease that would cost about the same amount over the lifetime of the sufferer is a no-brainer, even in net econonic output, terms.
    - ponector 3y ago
      But it is so only for few countries with ridiculously high costs of medical services. What about other? If we are talking about someone from south America? 2m is much higher that either costs or economical output the treated person could deliver through lifetime.
- soulbadguy 3y ago
  > What if you're the patient? What if you are on those 10 poor kids he mentioned ? I don't agree that OP statement is "crass". It's a very pragmatic and important question we have wrestle with.
  - esturk 3y ago
    Except those 10 poor kids aren't spending their own money to save themselves. The patient is though which is the point.
    - soulbadguy 3y ago
      if it's their own money sure. But almost all care services end benefiting from some sort of subsidies. Even if just by increasing the cost of inssurance for the rest of the population
- arcanemachiner 3y ago
dragonwriter 3y ago
> 2 millions, if applied properly, could do good for many people. Its very close to the lifetime average financial cost of medical services related to sickle cell disease for those with it, from things posted elsewhere in the thread. So its literally just paying the same (loosely) financial cost up front and then not having them suffer through the disease. An incentive structure that encourages mostly making the wrong decisions on things like this when it comes to cost/quality-of-life is why the US has the most expensive healthcare system in the developed world on a per capita or per GDP basis, and doesn't have better-than-typical general outcomes to show for it.
- twoodfin 3y ago
  To be fair, those incentive structures also encourage the development of what everyone knows going in will be—initially—absurdly expensive treatments. Over-under on when the NHS agrees to pay for this?
monero-xmr 3y ago
This is the effective altruism / utilitarianism insanity. If we only thought about "what the best use of $2 million is" we would still be living in huts.
- refactor_master 3y ago
  Actually, utilitarianism and capitalism have been the strongest growth factors for human prosperity and welfare since forever. Many societies with excessively strong opinions on morals however are literally living in huts.
  - krapp 3y ago
    >Many societies with excessively strong opinions on morals however are literally living in huts. Setting aside that the US government is deeply influenced by Christian conservatism and the culture by Puritan ideals, to the point that no American President can be elected without vocally professing faith in God, Christ, or being seen with a Bible in hand, and thus is the most moralizing culture within Western civilization by far (particularly where sex and gender are concerned,) which hut-dwelling societies are you talking about, specifically?
    - refactor_master 3y ago
      Here's a graph showing the negative correlation between "hut-dwelling" and "utilitarianism": https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/05/01/with-high-levels-of-prayer-u-s-is-an-outlier-among-wealthy-nations/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/05/01/with-high... The US can be said to be both. E.g. you won't find many "huts" along the northeastern coast, but search and you'll find them elsewhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_religiosity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ... I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine where the most "huts" are found. So it's flat out wrong to claim that some sort of perceived moral bankruptcy with regards to the value of human life has left our society in the stone ages, when all evidence points to the contrary. Under utilitarian capitalism people are expendable, but in the meantime they are less likely to dwell in huts than morally superior societies. Note that I've blatantly equated religion with moral here.
ericmay 3y ago
I understand the dilemma, but many of those same children you are thinking of live in poverty in places such as Africa and with the misfortune of sickle cell disease. If we prevented treatment because the money could be used elsewhere, we likely wouldn’t/won’t develop a drug that we could eventually[1] make cheap enough to cure these kids and give them longer lives too. We can do better! [1] There is a cynical take here about drug costs, geopolitics, etc. but I am rejecting that cynicism.
- robwwilliams 3y ago
  As mentioned above—this is day 1. How much did the first human genome sequence cost? (Effectively several billion dollars—now $1000.) How much did the first organ transplant cost? How much did the first electronic computer cost? Yes, cost will slow widespread use but it will spur the. next wave of innovation—-some motivated by profit, some motivated by social altruism.
  - ericmay 3y ago
    I wrote the OP :) I agree with you. What I was trying to highlight is that many of the people the person who originally responded to me was concerned about have the exact disease! And we need continued development with initial high costs to hopefully bring the costs down.
imtringued 3y ago
I'm sorry but the "cure" for that requires political change involving the stepping over of some people's corpses. You can only do that once people are sufficiently angry. Healthcare? People pay to be and stay healthy. The money was earmarked specifically for this purpose. Also, in the long run, you will be able to cure diseases even those "healthy" children have.

dopa42365 3y ago

It's possible to do both :)

lotsofpulp 3y ago
How? Society does not have unlimited resources. Especially the one that extremely ill people need, humans.
- huytersd 3y ago
  People with sickle cell already cost the taxpayer a lot of money over their lifetimes. I wouldn’t be surprised if it cost more than this treatment.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Of course, in that case it is simple. I imagine dopa42365 was referring to a scenario where there was an alternative way to spend the money.
ponector 3y ago
Possible in theory. But real life shows neither will be done in enough quantities.

esturk 3y ago

Such a crass statement. What if you're the patient? Would you spend 2 million to live 30-40 more years? It's so easy to step back and weight the lives of other as if you're making the decision for others.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
The $2M represents a certain portion of society’s productivity, which is not unlimited.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Yes, but spending it preventing debilitating disease that would cost about the same amount over the lifetime of the sufferer is a no-brainer, even in net econonic output, terms.
  - ponector 3y ago
    But it is so only for few countries with ridiculously high costs of medical services. What about other? If we are talking about someone from south America? 2m is much higher that either costs or economical output the treated person could deliver through lifetime.
soulbadguy 3y ago
> What if you're the patient? What if you are on those 10 poor kids he mentioned ? I don't agree that OP statement is "crass". It's a very pragmatic and important question we have wrestle with.
- esturk 3y ago
  Except those 10 poor kids aren't spending their own money to save themselves. The patient is though which is the point.
  - soulbadguy 3y ago
    if it's their own money sure. But almost all care services end benefiting from some sort of subsidies. Even if just by increasing the cost of inssurance for the rest of the population
arcanemachiner 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago

> 2 millions, if applied properly, could do good for many people. Its very close to the lifetime average financial cost of medical services related to sickle cell disease for those with it, from things posted elsewhere in the thread. So its literally just paying the same (loosely) financial cost up front and then not having them suffer through the disease. An incentive structure that encourages mostly making the wrong decisions on things like this when it comes to cost/quality-of-life is why the US has the most expensive healthcare system in the developed world on a per capita or per GDP basis, and doesn't have better-than-typical general outcomes to show for it.

twoodfin 3y ago
To be fair, those incentive structures also encourage the development of what everyone knows going in will be—initially—absurdly expensive treatments. Over-under on when the NHS agrees to pay for this?

monero-xmr 3y ago

This is the effective altruism / utilitarianism insanity. If we only thought about "what the best use of $2 million is" we would still be living in huts.

refactor_master 3y ago
Actually, utilitarianism and capitalism have been the strongest growth factors for human prosperity and welfare since forever. Many societies with excessively strong opinions on morals however are literally living in huts.
- krapp 3y ago
  >Many societies with excessively strong opinions on morals however are literally living in huts. Setting aside that the US government is deeply influenced by Christian conservatism and the culture by Puritan ideals, to the point that no American President can be elected without vocally professing faith in God, Christ, or being seen with a Bible in hand, and thus is the most moralizing culture within Western civilization by far (particularly where sex and gender are concerned,) which hut-dwelling societies are you talking about, specifically?
  - refactor_master 3y ago
    Here's a graph showing the negative correlation between "hut-dwelling" and "utilitarianism": https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/05/01/with-high-levels-of-prayer-u-s-is-an-outlier-among-wealthy-nations/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/05/01/with-high... The US can be said to be both. E.g. you won't find many "huts" along the northeastern coast, but search and you'll find them elsewhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_religiosity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ... I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine where the most "huts" are found. So it's flat out wrong to claim that some sort of perceived moral bankruptcy with regards to the value of human life has left our society in the stone ages, when all evidence points to the contrary. Under utilitarian capitalism people are expendable, but in the meantime they are less likely to dwell in huts than morally superior societies. Note that I've blatantly equated religion with moral here.

ericmay 3y ago

I understand the dilemma, but many of those same children you are thinking of live in poverty in places such as Africa and with the misfortune of sickle cell disease. If we prevented treatment because the money could be used elsewhere, we likely wouldn’t/won’t develop a drug that we could eventually[1] make cheap enough to cure these kids and give them longer lives too. We can do better! [1] There is a cynical take here about drug costs, geopolitics, etc. but I am rejecting that cynicism.

robwwilliams 3y ago
As mentioned above—this is day 1. How much did the first human genome sequence cost? (Effectively several billion dollars—now $1000.) How much did the first organ transplant cost? How much did the first electronic computer cost? Yes, cost will slow widespread use but it will spur the. next wave of innovation—-some motivated by profit, some motivated by social altruism.
- ericmay 3y ago
  I wrote the OP :) I agree with you. What I was trying to highlight is that many of the people the person who originally responded to me was concerned about have the exact disease! And we need continued development with initial high costs to hopefully bring the costs down.

imtringued 3y ago

I'm sorry but the "cure" for that requires political change involving the stepping over of some people's corpses. You can only do that once people are sufficiently angry. Healthcare? People pay to be and stay healthy. The money was earmarked specifically for this purpose. Also, in the long run, you will be able to cure diseases even those "healthy" children have.