The Economics of Life

The Economics of Life

The often interesting Everyday Economics column in Slate yesterday discussed the case of Tirhas Habtegiris, a woman who died after being taken off life support because she could not pay her medical bills. While this case deserves more national attention, the Slate column by Steven E. Landsburg is an example of economic thinking at its worst. Landsburg claims that the removal of the woman’s ventilator was a compassionate act because the money could that would have gone to the young woman’s care could be better spent in other ways. This is a false choice.

Landsburg claims, "A policy of helping everyone who needs a ventilator is a policy of spending less to help the same class of people in other ways." Give me a break. Does Landsburg really think the money that was saved went to other programs to help people in need? If he could show that was what happened then he would have at least some argument to make.

This line of reasoning suggests the more significant problem with Landsuburg’s argument. He turns the issue into an abstraction and then makes a universal claim. He goes so far as to say that “economic considerations are the basis of true compassion.” Economics may have something to say about how we put compassion in to action but the claim that compassion arises from the economic is ridiculous. As is often the case, rhetorical emphasis, in this case the use of “true”, points to the weakness of the argument. Landsburg wants the reader to believe that he knows what compassion is. Since his claim is weak, he throws in true to make his case sound strong.