As callous as it is, this is the best solution under a not-for-profit health system. The cost-benefit analysis in such a system is not 1 million dollars in shareholder value versus 1 million dollars to save a life, but instead is 1 million dollars to save one life (just the first year to save the child. there most certainly will probably be a lot more money spent over the entire life of the person born under such conditions) versus splitting that million dollars over procedures and medicines to save several lives.
At the end of the day, you need to value all person-years-lived equally, and determine who gets treatment and for what based on what maximizes the number of person-years lived over the entire pool of people.
I have no numbers to back this up, but I would expect the greatest benefit from a fixed amount of healthcare dollars spent will be on people between the ages of 4 and 20.
Once you've figured out roughly the cost per medical issue, frequency per capita of each medical issue, and a distribution graphing that issue against the age at which most people are afflicted and number of years left in their lives given their demographic, you can probably come up with a reasonable algorithm for maximizing person-years-lived at a certain health premium per person per year (assuming all dollars go back into the system).
Then the only remaining question that is left for society and individuals to answer is what level of premium will be paid and the medical issues that will be covered at that premium.
Furthermore, I think it would be interesting if we gave people in medical situations the following choice:
"The procedures necessary to save this person's life are estimated to cost 1 million dollars. You can choose to save this person's life, or you can choose to donate $800 thousands dollars to save X number of lives by donating it to procedures that maximize the number of lives saved."
People choosing to exercise their right to spend healthcare dollars on a lifesaving procedure for one individual are the ones that should have to face that philosophical and ethical dilemma of deciding to value one life over many.
If I were running a healthcare system, I would make it policy that everyone put in such a position would have to knowingly have to make that hard decision. It's the only sane way that would put the burden of callousness on the people with the right to to those health services. Just because you have the right to those services, doesn't mean you should exercise them in a not-for-profit healthcare system.
At the end of the day, you need to value all person-years-lived equally, and determine who gets treatment and for what based on what maximizes the number of person-years lived over the entire pool of people.
I have no numbers to back this up, but I would expect the greatest benefit from a fixed amount of healthcare dollars spent will be on people between the ages of 4 and 20.
Once you've figured out roughly the cost per medical issue, frequency per capita of each medical issue, and a distribution graphing that issue against the age at which most people are afflicted and number of years left in their lives given their demographic, you can probably come up with a reasonable algorithm for maximizing person-years-lived at a certain health premium per person per year (assuming all dollars go back into the system).
Then the only remaining question that is left for society and individuals to answer is what level of premium will be paid and the medical issues that will be covered at that premium.
Furthermore, I think it would be interesting if we gave people in medical situations the following choice:
"The procedures necessary to save this person's life are estimated to cost 1 million dollars. You can choose to save this person's life, or you can choose to donate $800 thousands dollars to save X number of lives by donating it to procedures that maximize the number of lives saved."
People choosing to exercise their right to spend healthcare dollars on a lifesaving procedure for one individual are the ones that should have to face that philosophical and ethical dilemma of deciding to value one life over many.
If I were running a healthcare system, I would make it policy that everyone put in such a position would have to knowingly have to make that hard decision. It's the only sane way that would put the burden of callousness on the people with the right to to those health services. Just because you have the right to those services, doesn't mean you should exercise them in a not-for-profit healthcare system.