Oh dear! Time for some uncomfortable accounting! Today we're looking at the (even darker) side of "computer says no" or what happens when the mathematics of life and death (aka who gets access to scarce state health care funds in the face of infinity elastic health care demand...) are allocated by a mysterious - and inarguable - algorithm.
Do you want to know what's in the black box?
How can we better allocate scarce resources?
Are there really any limits to "the greater good" when it comes to health care?
Does the rather utilitarian way how we value the ROI on human life make you uncomfortable?
What private (or public sector) solutions can you offer that don't boil down to a crass pricing of the value of a human life?
(I hope I haven't distressed you too much, go ahead and share your thoughts.)
Read more:
Who decides the value of a life worth saving? : https://bioethics.com/archives/68879?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter
Senicide and other such things : https://whatthefuturenow.com/2018/08/22/senicide-and-other-such-things/
Infinite elasticity of health, harm and risk : https://whatthefuturenow.com/2021/08/10/virtualised-and-discrete/
The (very) State We're In : https://www.fluxtrends.com/the-state-were-in-2023/
What's the ROI on a life?