Quote Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
sasquatch if a 7 year old poor kid and a 90 year old man rich kid need a liver transplant. who do you give it to first? the one who can pay most for it? give it to the highest bidder? or give it to the person who has most to live for? isn't going to keel over in a few years anyway. of course you give it to the poor kid there should be no doubt about that. you can't auction off life and death to the highest bidder.

disease and health is a lottery. it doesn't just affect the rish or poor. it can affect everyone. so the money should be pooled to be for the benefit of everyone.
But the old man isn't any less deserving of a chance at a longer life than the child. You are correct that we shouldn't place a price tag on such a chance at life, but at the same time, both the old man and the child are of equal worth. Your "worthiness for life" should not be determined by the age of the person or whether or not they can produce something for the society.

I could see the first come first served idea being much more fair, because it doesn't look at the individual's "worthiness".