You're acting as though there's only one kid. The case where the cost is very, very expensive is a demonstration that there must be some limit. You then have to

You're acting as though there's only one kid. The case where the cost is very, very expensive is a demonstration that there must be some limit. You then have to answer the question of where the limit should be. Meanwhile there are charities that can save a life for on the order of $3000-$5000. Spending millions of dollars on one person is saying that person's life is worth more than the thousand others who could have been saved with the same money. People have a hard time understanding this because the consequences are indirect. You spend millions of dollars to save a kid, but you took it from a company that would have hired a hundred people. Three of those people really needed the money. One of them needed it to pay someone to get the mold out of their house, so instead that family of five ended up in the hospital and two of them died. Another would have used it to repair the brakes on their car and because they couldn't, they died in a car crash along with the person they hit. The third simply couldn't afford to make rent without a job and then froze to death in the street. On top of this you have the other 97 people who wouldn't have died, but certainly didn't enjoy being unemployed. Should we care about one person more than all of these others put together, or does it matter how much something costs because it's always a trade off against something else?