We can save your baby.....

Feb 2011
18,163
12,867
The formerly great golden state
#1
... and it will only cost a little over two million.

At $2.1 Million, New Gene Therapy Is The Most Expensive Drug Ever
The federal Food and Drug Administration has approved a gene therapy for a rare childhood disorder that is now the most expensive drug on the market. It costs $2.125 million per patient.

But for those patients lucky enough to get it, it appears it can save their lives with a one-time treatment.
 
May 2012
68,735
13,707
By the wall
#2
Considering that the other cures require continual treatment at about 150k a pop, and they never stop, this is actually a big money saver.

Besides, insurance picks up the tab.

There isn't any insurance company not covering it.

It should also be noted that Novartis, who owns the drug, spends about 8 billion a year on research and development into new cures.

Its because of this cost that these prices are so high but without that cost this drug may not have been created.

So how much is a child's life worth?
 
Likes: jenniel
Feb 2011
18,163
12,867
The formerly great golden state
#3
Considering that the other cures require continual treatment at about 150k a pop, and they never stop, this is actually a big money saver.

Besides, insurance picks up the tab.

There isn't any insurance company not covering it.

It should also be noted that Novartis, who owns the drug, spends about 8 billion a year on research and development into new cures.

Its because of this cost that these prices are so high but without that cost this drug may not have been created.

So how much is a child's life worth?
That depends on whether it is my child or a child of a family member or friend. If that's the case, then the sky is the limit.

If not, then being rational about it dictates that 2 million spent for ordinary pre and post natal care would save many children.
 
May 2012
68,735
13,707
By the wall
#4
That depends on whether it is my child or a child of a family member or friend. If that's the case, then the sky is the limit.

If not, then being rational about it dictates that 2 million spent for ordinary pre and post natal care would save many children.
This is a genealogy problem, no amount of care would prevent it.

May have missed your point there.
 
Feb 2011
18,163
12,867
The formerly great golden state
#5
This is a genealogy problem, no amount of care would prevent it.

May have missed your point there.
What was missed was the point.

You have 2 million to spend to save a baby. You can spend it for ordinary care for many children, or for a DNA fix for one. Which would save the most babies in the long run?
 
May 2012
68,735
13,707
By the wall
#7
What was missed was the point.

You have 2 million to spend to save a baby. You can spend it for ordinary care for many children, or for a DNA fix for one. Which would save the most babies in the long run?
That is an ethical question each person can only answer for themselves.

As you said, if it was your child the choice would be obvious.

There is no right or wrong answer here and it can't be answered unless you are some 100% utilitarian.