How Much is a Little Boy Worth?

[spingears]

How Much is a Little Boy Worth? Has been answered adequately.

The real question is: “What compensation should the parents ask for if anything?”

Aldebaran has answered that question from a point of having experienced the same loss three times. We all have to experience the loss of loved ones sooner or later. It is far better to have a faith that will allow us to accept the loss than lack faith and spend years mourning the loss to no avail.

[dakravel]

They should have taken the offer, or taken nothing at all.

[Noone_Special]

*Originally posted by DSeid *
**But herein lies the serious answer to the question as rhetorically in the op.

What if all that would, on average, prevent one child’s death per $100 mill spent. Would society do it? For 50 mill/child’s life saved? For 1 mill per child’s life saved?

How much are willing to spend, to raise your taxes to do it, to take away from education or defense or whathaveyou, per child save a child’s life?

Don’t say that life is priceless unless you are willing to give up all of the education and defense budget and raise your taxes to boot to do it. Give me a number. Play the game. **

Extremely well put.

It must be said that there is a price to pay for every child saved from this fate (death by “unforseeable” accident). This price includes the cost of better and more QA, the cost of improving good products even further (We are not - as the OP noted - talking about shoddy worksmanship here!), the cost of more and better maintainence of already well maintained equipment, etc…

These extra $$‘s will come out the consumers’ pockets. And it’s a lot of $$'s!

This money would almost certainly be better spent individually - for example, buying a new and safer family car - or communally - for example, investing in more pediatric cancer research. More children could be saved for less investment.

In the end, nothing can be made completely perfect. And resources are always limited. So when you try to perfect one thing, you necessarily neglect something else. Yet, losing a child is still just about the very worst thing that can happen to a parent. It is no consolation at all to know that it could not have been prevented (or worse yet - was, in a sense, “allowed” to happen, allowing that perhaps 10 other children - none your own - could be saved from completely different deaths).

Bottom line - life is not fair, and compomises must be made - and are made daily - even when the lives of babes are on the line. And losses must be taken - and are taken daily.

As to the OP - If this is in fact a “no fault” case, I think the city is being extremely generous. Even if the city is making the offer because of some underlying “guilt feeling” (they’re not so sure they were blameless…), $500000 is still a lot of life insurance. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the sum being offered - unless the family sees it as an attempt to cover up the culpability of some individual(s) who may have been guilty of negligence, in which case they should say so, rather than say that the monetary sum offered is too small.

xtisme and aldebaran - my heart goes out to you! I wish you the strength to carry on, and may you never have to endure this kind of suffering again.
Your losses are personal. I appologize for the pain you must feel when I look at total numbers, instead of at each and every personal tragedy separately. I will understand if you are angry for my views here. I know I can never truly share your pain.

Dan Abarbanel

[MC_Master_of_Ceremonies]

*Originally posted by DSeid *
**But herein lies the serious answer to the question as rhetorically in the op.

What if all that would, on average, prevent one child’s death per $100 mill spent. Would society do it? For 50 mill/child’s life saved? For 1 mill per child’s life saved?

How much are willing to spend, to raise your taxes to do it, to take away from education or defense or whathaveyou, per child save a child’s life?

Don’t say that life is priceless unless you are willing to give up all of the education and defense budget and raise your taxes to boot to do it. Give me a number. Play the game. **

Indeed this is infact a major part of risk management. Here in the UK the monetary value placed on a life by the government is about $1 million, that is to say if for a certain safety measure: the projected cost/the projected number of lifes saved is greater than $1 million then those measures are considered uneconomical.

[Aldebaran]

Noone special,

Thank you for your empathy.
People tend to act as if their child is the only child in the world which is a most natural thing to do.
There are still two wonderfull children in our house and at least we are so fortunate to be in a position that we can try to protect them the best we can and give them the best opportunities in life.

So many children die of the most common diseases just because their parents aren’t that fortunate. Or they die in wars and other conflicts. They die because of the dangers that surround them and there is no recompensation whatsoever for their parents and family possible.

It is unthinkable to imagine your children in such poverty or such dangers. It is also impossible to resolve all children’s problems worldwide.
We decided to financially adopt children through an organisation which works for the benefit of their whole family and in most cases also the whole community.

So it is not the ongoing discussion here that disturbs me.
It is the fact that the family mentioned in the OP seems to have no idea of the children in need worldwide.
You can’t “buy off” the loss of a child. No money on earth can help you “accepting” that. In their position I would accept the money and spend it on children who are alive, yet have no life and no future if no one cares about it.

Salaam. A