In the Journal of Med Ethics article, “QALYfying the Value of Life,” John Harris discusses the Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY). He explains the system’s purpose is to determine where to allocate healthcare in cases where there is not enough resources to provide for everyone. It is based on the assumption that most people would prefer a shorter life of higher quality than a longer life with higher suffering. Harris’s primary critique of the system is that it does not handle cases where deciding who to treat is the primary concern.
Harris provides a scenario that demonstrates the QALY favoring a decision opposite what he claims is best for society. In the example there are 8 eight people who all will die without treatment, all but one will …show more content…
He makes the argument that even though the amount of life time saved is equal and, in this case less expensive, the amount of people that die is far greater (end sentence). and This is not accounted for. The number of lives saved should take precedent over QALYs when …show more content…
This does not have to do with their capacity to decide but the right to decide. Killing a human is directly wronging them and therefore cannot be justified while it is against their will. This right to life is the basis for a person life having value as opposed to life years. When comparing the value of people’s lives in the case of 8 patients, the 7 who might live for a year could only be rejected treatment if their life has zero value. Since their lives do have value it must be true that the seven should be favored even though the QALY favors the
Harris provides a scenario that demonstrates the QALY favoring a decision opposite what he claims is best for society. In the example there are 8 eight people who all will die without treatment, all but one will …show more content…
He makes the argument that even though the amount of life time saved is equal and, in this case less expensive, the amount of people that die is far greater (end sentence). and This is not accounted for. The number of lives saved should take precedent over QALYs when …show more content…
This does not have to do with their capacity to decide but the right to decide. Killing a human is directly wronging them and therefore cannot be justified while it is against their will. This right to life is the basis for a person life having value as opposed to life years. When comparing the value of people’s lives in the case of 8 patients, the 7 who might live for a year could only be rejected treatment if their life has zero value. Since their lives do have value it must be true that the seven should be favored even though the QALY favors the