The point you’re making has been made for some other diseases. You are somewhat trying to quantify years of life lost. At first glance that makes pretty good sense. If only the very old at the ones dying then we’re not losing that many years of society life.
But that will never fly in the context of legality. If you started to walk down that path you would then have to declare degrees of murder to vary by the age of the victim. A criminal that shoots an elderly person versus a criminal who shoots a younger person . . . we would have to vary their sentence on conviction because the crimes would not be equivalent.
Society is not going to go down that path. Murder is murder.
Well said!
While murder is murder criminally, since you bring up legality, malpractice against an elderly person is significantly less expensive than against a young person becuase the economic damages are far less. It is rare tk ever see a malpractice tort for someone over 80 cause as Biden would say you ain’t worth all that much
Using the law as a cudgel is kind of dangerous here
I have no idea what you are talking about. The was not a scintilla of valuing lives according to age in what I said.
Would you agree that if the disease was primarily affecting ten-year-olds, that the emphasis in public policy might wisely be directed at protecting them, rather than force-fitting the same policy for all age groups?