How Much Money is a Child’s Life Worth?
Lethal diseases and their pricey medications and treatments have been a consistent point of ethical issue in the United States, and the world as a whole. To fight a disease which is genetically caused, or whose origin is unknown, is difficult to do. And when treatments for said diseases finally are uncovered, their price tags are nothing short of jaw- dropping. Spinal muscular atrophy is just one example of these fatal diseases. As a genetically induced disease, SMA usually causes difficulty in moving limbs of the body, as well as swallowing food or even talking. Death ensues in most patients by the age of two.
And so the debate begins. How much money is a child’s life worth? When a medication would save a child’s life, is it wrong for this medication to cost its worth? For those who suffer with spinal muscular atrophy, genetic treatment for the disease, named Zolgensma, costs $2.1 million. And because many insurance companies refuse to cover costs for the treatment, families of these children with SMA are struggling to pay the ludicrous costs. Frustrations with the treatment continued when it was revealed that, “when agency officials said that Novartis had given regulators manipulated or mishandled data as part of its Zolgensma application and that the company waited until after the drug was approved to report the problem.” Questions of the treatment’s safety and effectiveness arose in response to these allegations. Why pay such vast amounts of money for a treatment that’s manipulated data in order to be approved more quickly, especially when this treatment is the only option for those who suffer from SMA.
To charge so much for life-saving treatment causes ethical debate of which the worth of a child’s life comes into question. It is unfair to put such a high price tag on treatment which could save a child’s life. Besides that, government incentives should not be placed in order to produce more of these treatments and medications, especially when nothing is done to reduce the cost for patients. Is a child’s life worth the politicking between companies? The answer should always be no.
ahntkd99
carahall
andrewbecharaa
athenapup4
bane1900
bestbaker123
bmdpiano
comp0327
compclass8
cynicalwordsmith22
doglover441
drippydoughnut
drpaleontology
gcatt310
givemeclouttokens
hershey515
iamsleepy01
imagination4421
influenza123
jackso23
Jayv23
kraemercali
lazybear8
lelebxby
lg102015
lovericeandnoodles
lucbe219
morra2024
mpsj13
roses0102
Sub2MigzFilms
smellycat23
tenere84
thefrontbottom
voxpopuli75
whosyourcookie22
yankeefan25
Newspaperlessness 
I found your writing to be very well organized. It hits all essential components needed in an editorial. Your claim is clear from the very beginning. The language used in your writing shows how passionate you are about this meaningful problem, and persuades readers to have as much passion as you do on this matter. You provided evidence and gave your readers hard-hitting questions that allowed them to think critically about your topic as well.
LikeLike
Your writing is very good and clearly passionate. You makes strong claims in the beginning of your writing and your writing flows nicely. I do think that you should make your stance completely obvious in the very beginning of your first paragraph. I guess you were using the funnel method to ease your audience into the reading, which you do a good job of, but l suggest starting with your stance so the reader knows from the get-go which side you stand on. Editorials are supposed to be filled with opinions and judgement so I think you could benefit from being blunt. You play the role of god well by using “should not” “can’t” and by targeting the morals of the companies who charge so much for the life saving medicine. There are small grammatical errors but they can easily be fixed. Overall, I enjoyed your writing. You have passion, the right opinions and are informative about SMA and everything else you discussed.
LikeLike
This writing was done very well and I really enjoyed it. The questions that you asked in the writing were really important questions that people should seriously ask themselves. From what we learned in class, the only thing i would say for you to add is making your opinion more clear and stated early on in the writing. After you were asking the questions your answers followed behind it which is very good. Overall this writing is done well
LikeLike
I thought your writing was very good. I did not know what SMA was until i read your editorial. You had very clear points and worded everything very well. The only thing I think you need to change is the more editorial side of your article. I think you need a couple more sentences that clearly states your opinion on the issue. But other then that it is very well written.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I enjoyed reading about this topic very much, before reading I had no clue what the disease was so this was quite informative. You make your clear claim in the last paragraph stating that “it is unfair” for this treatment to cost this much . For this claim, I would move it further up in your editorial to make the essay more powerful than it already is. Your position is stated, but not enforced. Add more compelling words that point directly to the side you are supporting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll be back to provide peer review for this one.
LikeLike
I’ll be back to provide peer review on this one
LikeLike
I’ll be back to provide a peer review for this one
LikeLike
I like your argument on this ethical issue. Taking a stance on this subject matter is not easy and your points are all valid. Organization is well and goes from broad to more precise and I like your editorial a lot.
LikeLike
Thats fire, for someone who did not know what SMA is, myself, it was explained very nicely. Second paragraph How much money is a child’s life worth?” Thats the money right there, made me interested and made me want to continue to read. ” It is unfair to put such a high price tag on treatment which could save a child’s life.” thats facts. Last sentence clear statement and opinion fire
LikeLiked by 1 person
The first paragraph is very good, you have a clear claim stated in the writing and it is intriguing. You use good language that in the beginning that pull in the readers and makes them want to read more. It is organized well because you start with a firm claim and then back it up with logical facts. The question in your second paragraph is well done because you do completely answer the question within the next few sentences. Over all you did a really good job, maybe in the last sentence of the second paragraph make it more clear because the sentence could be interpreted differently since it seems sarcastic, it is not sure if it is try to be or not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To start I would like to say that I did enjoy your writing. You gave compelling questions that one must seriously ask themselves which kept me interested in seeing your response to such questions. This was the main thing that kept me reading. Going off of what we learned in class today the only real critique I would have to say about this writing is make your side clear. You’re a little vague in stating what side you’re going to defend. Leading all the way until your final paragraph to state your side in whether or not medications for children should be as high as they are. Instead try taking the second sentence in your last paragraph where you state your pov and move it into the beginning of the first paragraph.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll be back to write a peer review on here
LikeLike
I’ll be back to write a peer review on this one.
LikeLike
review
LikeLike
be back to review this one
LikeLike
I’ll be back to provide peer review for this one
LikeLike
be back to peer review this one
LikeLike