An ethical question. If I let you die, am I responsible for your death?

[white_wolf]

I was reading a post on another forum between a Marxist and an anarcho-capitalist. The Marxist argued that when health insurance CEOs deny life saving coverage they were committing murder, since their actions caused people's death. He even argued that the doctor would be guilty, if he could have done something, but refused. The Capitalist disagreed saying that no one has any obligation to provide services for another person if they don't want to.

I jumped in briefly to point out that I think that if you have the ability to help someone you should, especially if it is life or death. My example was this: say you are on the edge of a cliff hanging to a weed and about to fall off, if I just let you fall, aren't I responsible for your death? I would say I am, perhaps not legally, but ethically.

[Warpy]

1. There is a concept in medicine called negligence

which means the failure to provide the standard of care in a timely manner. When it's proven in a civil court, the plaintiff generally walks away rich.

This is what insurance companies are guilty of, neglecting to approve and pay for timely care that people have paid premiums for them to do. Unfortunately, our only recourse is to sue them out of existence, something that is very difficult in the present judicial climate.

Eventually, what is likely to happen is that corporations will gradually shift the entire burden of health insurance onto the backs of their employees, at which time the employees will simply drop it because you know wages are going nowhere.

Once health insurance becomes unprofitable, those companies will bow out, one market at a time. Eventually we'll get single payer, but it will be state by state.

Until then, the insurance giants will continue to collect money and do little to justify it.

[WheelWalker]

2. You are responsible for your life.

[JVS]

3. Allowing to die carries a lower level of responsibility than causing to die.

For example, if I see you fall into an icy river and I refrain from jumping in and attempting to save you, I'm not nearly as responsible as I would be had I pushed you in.

Of course, as the action required to save someone becomes less dangerous and onerous there is a tendency to view non-intervention as wrong. For example, if I could throw you a rope or call the police to try to help you, then refraining from acting to prevent your death is a harder course of action to defend.

[dmallind]

4. Yes, but the original example is not clear cut

This is basic utilitarianism. To avoid harm is equal to creating benefit, and vice versa. Assuming you could safely pull me up from the cliff then yes you are very much responsible for my death ethically albeit unlikely legally.

But an insurance employee - not the CEO since they do not make such decisions at all - has a much murkier choice. Rarely if ever is it definitely die vs definitely have a full and long life based on one questionably covered procedure. Life saving for how long? What quality of life? What risks to the procedure? What else could that surgeon/machine/money be doing to save others who have better odds? Would extending coverage to such procedures limit affordability or even existence of coverage? It's certainly possible some insurance decisions do make a moral agent culpable for teleological harm, but it's neither certain nor easy to assess at the time.

[DocMac]

5. I'm not so sure about the cliff scenario.

The person you are trying to save could pull you down with them. You shouldn't feel that way if you are putting yourself in danger, though for some people it is their job.

I can't imagine a nurse or doctor leaving you half dead on the ER floor.

The healthcare company doesn't see that person on the floor, they are removed from it, emotionally. They do their best to remove themselves financially as well.

It's an interesting topic. Some people volunteer as firmen and put themselves in danger to save lives. Others, like docters, may not help you if you come up $20k short for a life saving operation. It's hard to reconcile this behaviour, other than greed.

[deadinsider]

6. You are if you could save and not put yourself in mortal danger imo n\t

[SomethingFishy]

7. Um.. the "Capitalist" is wrong. If you are PAYING for insurance

and they deny you coverage and that causes your death, hell yes they hold some responsibility. They let someone die so they could make more money. It's not even a legit question.

However on the "hanging off a cliff" scenario, well no you are not responsible if you let someone fall to their death. What you are is a complete and utter waste of fucking flesh.

[Scuba]

8. Denying someone health care coverage that they already paid for (!!!) is murder.

Some health insurance executives are mass murderers for money.