Theoretical Question

[Lukie]

Suppose the following were true:

A government worker is employed at a nuclear power plant. Due to a government error, there is a radiation spill, and as a result, the employee develops an incredibly rare, but deadly disease. This disease can be cured through extensive treatment, albeit at great cost, that would allow the employee to make a full recovery. For agrument's sake, assume there is no limit to the amount of money this could cost and there would be no other benefit to doing this treatment other then saving the one employee.

What is the maximum amount of money the government should spend in order to save the employee?



*Also note that this has absolutely nothing to do with the political thread, so if you think I am trying to prove a point or something, forget about it.

[Demiparadigm]

I spent 4 years working in nuclear power. I was in charge of radiation health for the plant.
Because of that, this question is WAY too hypothetical for me.

I understand the ethical backbone of the question though. I just can't bring myself to answer it.

Good luck.

[™]

10 billion dollars

[lowBoy]

Simple utility - if spending the money to treat him causes more suffering for the nation as a whole than not spending the money to treat him does, then you don't cure him.

[ProZachNation]

1billion

[Les_Worm]

Depends, how much can the family sue the government for their negligence? I would say they should spend up to that amount.

[ProZachNation]

Depends, how much can the family sue the government for their negligence? I would say they should spend up to that amount.

Then the goverment should pay for $0. In area51 workers have got really sick and when the families tried to sue the goverment was like classified materials so no evidence.

[vqc]

Simple utility - if spending the money to treat him causes more suffering for the nation as a whole than not spending the money to treat him does, then you don't cure him.

i think a test of pareto superiority would be better here.

[Les_Worm]

Depends, how much can the family sue the government for their negligence? I would say they should spend up to that amount.

Then the goverment should pay for $0. In area51 workers have got really sick and when the families tried to sue the goverment was like classified materials so no evidence.

You don't really need hard evidence. All you need to do is connect his death with governmental negligence and you have a case of strict tort liability.

[journey075]

Simple utility - if spending the money to treat him causes more suffering for the nation as a whole than not spending the money to treat him does, then you don't cure him.

thats a very brutally honest, yet perfect answer.

the amount would have to equal probable out of court settlement + amount nuclear power lobbyists would pay in order to hush up the issue.

[Sed]

<= the amount a wrongful death judgement would cost them....

- sed the cynic

[Lukie]

I spent 4 years working in nuclear power. I was in charge of radiation health for the plant.
Because of that, this question is WAY too hypothetical for me.

I understand the ethical backbone of the question though. I just can't bring myself to answer it.

Good luck.

I see.. this topic completely aside, I bet a radiation spill, ala Chernobyl, was always a concern for you. I know I'd be scared shitless of something like that.

In any case, the question is a very difficult one to answer.. and it's not something I'm even going to try to do right now. In any case, the ethical/logical backbone of the question is what's important here, not the situation (nuclear power plant spill) that leads up to it.

[Demiparadigm]

The thing is, we have procedures in place to prevent this situation, as well as what we would do if it were to occur.
It is not as though the government has never thought of how t odeal with an accident.
Also, the federal government doesn't own or operate the reactors, they simply oversee the operation. The government is not liable for accidents beyond what any employer is liable for in the case of wrongful death or workman's compensation.

I said I wasn't going to answer didn't I? oops.

[vqc]

spend x amoutn of money
where X is the maximum amount spendable so that
at least one person is better off than before and no one is worse off than before.

[Lukie]

The thing is, we have procedures in place to prevent this situation, as well as what we would do if it were to occur.
It is not as though the government has never thought of how t odeal with an accident.

Obviously.
I guess I'm just not as educated as you are about nuclear power.. I am by no means against it (it's a great thing).. but if I was working in a plant, radiation contamination would probably worry me, at least based on my knowledge (or lack of it) right now.

Also, the federal government doesn't own or operate the reactors, they simply oversee the operation. The government is not liable for accidents beyond what any employer is liable for in the case of wrongful death or workman's compensation.

I said I wasn't going to answer didn't I? oops.

Interesting, I did not know this. This thread was supposed to plant a question like: "at what price should a government value one of it citizen's lives at?" The entire nuclear powerplant situation was just to get to that point.