Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of 9/11 on America
What is the value of a life
Social and cultural effects of 9/11
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effects of 9/11 on America
When situations arise and people die or become ill a value has to be placed on their life to determine if they are going to be healed or if their family is going to be compensated for their loss. The value of life has a variety of interpretations based on the approach a person decides to take. Some people think of human life with an economic point of view which can led to certain deceased citizens receiving more money for accidents than others. The economic view also says that if a surgery is going to cost the government to much money then the person who needs the surgery should not get it. On the other hand, some people look at it emotionally and say that everyone should get an equal amount of money for incidents that occur. People who look …show more content…
Because of this shortage, we have to put a monetary value on the amount of help or compensation a person or their family will receive. So many people died in 9/11 that if you were to give every family the same amount of compensation without lowering a family’s standard of living, the government would be even deeper in debt. To compensate families for losing loved ones in 9/11, the government decided to give families a sum of money based on the deceased member’s income and how much life insurance they had (Ripley 75). The reason that people receive different amounts of compensation is because some people contributed to society and the economic stability of the country more than others. When you think about it, which life is worth more economically, a 50-year-old convicted rapist or a 23-year-old doctor in the prime of his career? Obviously the 23-year-old doctor is worth more because he contributes to society by saving lives. Sometimes people deserve more compensation based on the job they had. Firefighters, police officers, and military soldiers deserve quite a bit for compensation because they risk their lives every day for other people. When “four Marines drowned because the beach was not protected by lifeguards or public security” the families of the Marines got $50,000 for their deaths (Fontaine 4). The reason they only got $50,000 …show more content…
Firefighters, police officers, and military personal should be compensated more than other people because they risk their lives every day to keep citizens safe. It is never right just to view people as dollar signs because when you do this, you do not treat them like a humans and have no regard for their families. Taking both into consideration can account for the lack of resources while also understanding the emotional distress the families will go
Before the events of 9/11 the US had been attacked before and we were aware of possible threats. However, these threats, specifically those of Al-Qaeda were not taken seriously by American foreign policy makers or regular Americans alike, so on September 11, 2001 Americans were truly shocked by the scale of devastation and loss of life that occurred. The effect these attacks had on America was incredible. In the years that followed Americans became fearful and discriminatory of religious groups; the government created the Department of Homeland Security and enacted stricter search and seizure laws, and America’s foreign policy became defined by unilateral decision making and preemptive war.
In the article, What Is a Life Worth? by Amanda Ripley, she explains that compensation was given to families of the 911 tragedy to reimburse them of their loss, so that they can maintain their lifestyle. For instance, “Congress created the fund as a safety net for the victims’ families to ensure that they maintain something resembling their current standard of living” (Ripley 76). Economically speaking, all lives are not equal because of where a person stands financially. People who are more successful and have a higher income, should receive a higher amount when being compensated. For example, a stockbrokers family should receive more than the amount of a dishwashers family because of the difference in their incomes. Amanda Ripley describes the system and how the compensation calculus works when she says, “First, the government will estimate how much a victim would have earned over his or her lifetime had the planes never crashed... To estimate this amount, each family was handed an easy-to-read chart on the way into the meeting: Find your loved one’s age and income and follow your finger to the lucky number. Note that the lifetime earnings have been boosted by a flat $250,000 for “pain and suffering”―noneconomic losses, they are called. Tack on an extra $50,000 in pain and suffering for a spouse and for each child.” (Ripley 75). Compensation is cruel but it is not trying to put a value on someone’s life, it’s simply
In 1692, one of the most inhumane tragedies occurred in the small village of Salem, Massachusetts. Now infamously recognized as the “Salem Witch Trials,” the trials were based on faulty accusations that charged others of being witches. These accusations resulted in a considerable amount of people being imprisoned and hanged, and it ended with 20 people being killed. 309 years later, four planes were hijacked by terrorists and were set to crash in four important government centers and buildings. Consequently, these attacks resulted in 2,966 deaths and it was the most severe attack ever on American soil. The terrorists were revealed to be Muslims, and that they supposedly did it in the name of “Allah”, which is the Arabic translation for God.
This is morally problematic as it implies that a person has a base value: a use value of a monetary value, and this is morally problematic, as we can’t put a lower value of life, as it then debases life. And a debasement of life is intuitionally wrong. Works Cited James, Susan Dolandson. Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon? 6 August 2008.
There is great debate in this country and worldwide over whether or not terminally ill patients who are experiencing great suffering should have the right to choose death. A deep divide amongst the American public exists on the issue. It is extremely important to reach an ethical decision on whether or not terminally ill patients have this right to choose death, since many may be needlessly suffering, if an ethical solution exists.
...will never be compensation great enough for a vets time in service. Every day of a soldier’s tour there is a chance of their livelihood or life itself to be taken from them, a chance to no be able to return home to their families. For this it would be expected that the government would expend every resource to make sure a soldier is able to live a normal life outside of the military. But instead they receive minimal benefits in their return home. Rather than immediately receive treatment for a mental illness a vet can sit waiting for months at a time pondering suicide. Instead of receiving a college education a vet may end up on the streets alone. As an alternative to spending all of its money on failed projects across the nation, it should instead invest that money into the VA so that veterans might actually receive some type of beneficial help in their return home
Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a seemingly straightforward analytical tool that is used to assess complex public policy decisions, however CEA does not always account for all intangible benefits. Cost-effectiveness is used to help pinpoint neglected opportunities for improving health and then allotting scarce resources to obtain better health outcomes for society. Since Britain’s has limited resources to concentrate on public health issues that have varying outcomes with regards to survival and quality of life. Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA), part of the cost-effectiveness family is an appropriate technique to utilize when making such decisions because it allows different health outcomes to be transformed to a common unit, known as QALYs (quality-adjusted life year). Yet, societal benefits and costs are often not considered for CUA. Additionally, measuring QALYs is harder than measuring the monetary value of life through improvements in health, as is done with cost–benefit analysis. Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), also a part of the cost-effectiveness family is used to recognize value in terms of economic efficiency, in that it improves allocation of scarce resources. In addition, some individuals believe that life is invaluable and there are moral problems with assigning a value on human life.
...t’s family should be able decide for the patient whether or not prolonging their life is moral.
The patient has to be completely free to make this decision, with absolutely no power whatsoeverin the insurance company's hand to force it. On the other hand, giving the opportunity to the patient to consider the expenses against the advantages and them make this decision about their own health care would be morally incorrect.. Indeed, only the patient can justify the morality in the situation which makes this hard decision for himself or herself, instead of some third party government or insurance company bureaucracy. Also, basic economic logic tells people that somebody should be making this decision.
Resources have always been inadequate for food, economics and healthcare and all scarce resources are rationed in one way or another. Healthcare resources can be in the forms of medicine, machinery, expensive treatment and organ transplantation. For decades, allocation of healthcare resources in an equitable manner has always been the subject of debate, concern and analysis, yet the issue has persistently resisted resolution. Scarcity of resources for healthcare and issue of allocation is permanent and inescapable (Harris, “Deciding between Patients”). Scarcity can be defined in general, in emergency and in crises as well as shortage of certain kind of treatment, medicine or organs. As a result of scarcity of resources, and some people may be left untreated or die when certain patients are prioritized and intention of is that everyone will ultimately be treated (Harris, 2009: 335). Allocation of limited resources is an ethical issue since it is vital to address the question of justice and making fair decisions. Ethical judgments and concerns are part of daily choice in allocation of health resources and also to ensure these resources are allocated in a fair and just way. This paper will explore how QALYs, ageism and responsibility in particular influence the allocation of healthcare resources in general through the lens of justice, equity, social worth, fairness, and deservingness.
One of the main reasons assisted suicide should not be considered for legalization is the fact that it reduces the value of a human life. If this act becomes legal, many people who are sick are going to begin believing that because they are ill, their life is not worth living anymore. This alone i...
Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death. Uhlmann (1998) mentions that individuals’ attitudes towards euthanasia differ. From a utilitarianism point of view – holding that an action is judged as good or bad in relation to the consequence, outcome, or end result that is derived from it, and people choosing actions that will, in a given circumstance, increase the overall good (Lum, 2010) - euthanasia could become a means of health care cost containment, and also, with specific safeguards and in certain circumstances the taking of a human life is merciful and that all of us are entitled to end our lives when we see fit.
People should be free to determine their own fate by their own choices, especially in connection with private matters such as their health. Dying patients should require the option of both hospice care and assisted suicide.
Human life is full of meaning. As humans, we assign value to many things. However, what happens when we assign a specific value to a human life? This is the issue being presented in the article, “What is a Life Worth,” by Amanda Ripley. The government determines a monetary value to a human life, and it does not appeal to the masses.
In the words of Thiroux & Krasemann (Ethics: Theory and Practice, 2012, p.145, para 4), “human beings should revere life and preserve death”. Value of life is not a contributing principle in this ethical problem.