I don't offer a what-if scenario - my example is very clear and does not require what-if thinking.

You claim a life has no price but clearly it does and healthcare organizations make these decisions, including in Canada, all the time. They have to decide what a persons life is worth because there is not an unlimited amount of money in the pot. They need to distribute available funds across a variety of causes and as soon as you do that you place a price on life.

People die all the time of diseases that could be treated or at least prolong the life of the patient. But doing so takes money away from other causes and people in need. This balancing act requires life to have a price. Only if funds are unlimited can life afford to have no price limit.

Forcing everyone to wears helmets is a simple cost/benefit decision. How much money would helmets save soceity vs. how much money would it cost to produce those helmets, buy them, carry them around, police their usage, and the cost of disposing of all those old helmets, etc, etc. Think it through…

Furthermore, the wearing of helmets, like the driving of large 4x4 trucks, can actually lead to more reckless skiing (driving) in the belief that we are safer and hence can go faster.



>Depends. We can go a long way with that kind of "what if" scenario. Here's one: What if that one life we saved will save 1 000 000 lifes because that person will find a cure for some cancer? Or that person is the next Einstein?
>
>I think we should get back to the question of the helmet.
>
>>Realistically - life has price and most healthcare organizations have worked out what it is. Would you spend $1 million to save 1 life if that same $1 million could save 1000 others?