General Motors is in hot water because of faulty ignition
switches they installed in some of their cars. This switch had a problem that
caused cars to lose electrical system while being driven. As a result the
driver of the car would not have power steering or power brakes operating and
that could lead to a collision. Worse, such electric malfunction would also
make the airbags stop working, increasing the likelihood of death in such
collisions.
A key issue is that GM knew about this problem for a long
time and did nothing about it. Meanwhile at least 13 people have died because
of this fault. Worse, the solution would have cost as little as two dollars a
car. This has infuriated people at large, because it indicates what a low value
GM places on lives of people.
GM may argue that we have accepted many other similar
actions that they, and other carmakers, take, without any protest. For example,
we know that a collision avoidance system, if made available on all vehicles,
not just the expensive ones, may save lots of lives. Similarly, side airbags
can do the same---save lives in case of a collision. Should the fact that GM does not have these systems installed in
all their cars indicate that they put
money above lives? If we have already allowed GM to get away with that, why
do we make a fuss about the faulty ignition switch?
This is an interesting point. However, there are grounds to
say that this is comparing apples and oranges. The faulty ignition switch causes accidents, the other example
cited either prevent an accident or reduce its impact. That is not the same.
GM may then argue that we are upset because the cost of fix
is so small. What if the fix required GM to spend two hundred dollars per car
not two? Would we be less upset?
This is when things get interesting. Most likely we will say
yes---we will be less upset if the cost of fix was not so insignificant. However, in doing so, are we putting a
dollar value to human life?
So, for example, if the number of cars with the ignition switch
problem is 100,000, at $2 a fix, the cost per year will be $200,000 and that would
have saved, let’s say, two lives. Since GM decided not to fix the problem, they
are placing the value of a human life to be less than $100 thousand. This is clearly
upsetting to all of us. However, if the cost is hundred times more, the value of
life goes up to $10 million, and we will be less upset if they did not fix the
problem. If we extrapolate this reasoning, there may be some dollar figure at
which we would find GM’s behavior acceptable.
So, despite rhetoric,
we all agree that the value of human life is not infinite and there is a dollar
value that we are comfortable with.
It reminds me of a conversation, George Bernard Shaw (I
think) had with a woman:
GBS, “Will you sleep with me, if I give you $10 million?”
Woman, “Yes.”
“What if I give you $20?”
“What do you take me for---a whore?”
“Madam, we have established that fact, we are just haggling
over the price.”
I know that in a serious subject like the value of a human
life, such levity might not be appropriate, but you get my point. Of course,
once we do accept that the human life has a dollar value, the question shifts
to how much.
In the future if such a dollar value is placed, the process of making all kinds of decisions
will get simplified.
For example, the medical establishment may decide that a
life may not be worth saving if it costs more than certain amount. Thus, the
guideline can be that the life of a 100-year-old person is not be worth
extending by 100 days if it costs more than one million dollars.
Actually, such decisions are already being made, but with
much trepidation and without any publicity. A recent NY Times article reported that “some
of the most influential medical groups in the nation are recommending that
doctors weight the costs, not just the effectiveness of the treatment, as they
make decisions about patient care”. “Protecting patients from financial ruin if
fundamental to the precept of ‘do no harm,’” the article mentions in describing
the policy of cardiology societies.
Given the rising cost
of medical care, I believe such policy is necessary.
However, if we do so, what right will we have to hold GM
accountable for any tradeoff they
make related to cost of fix vs. number of likely fatalities?
