The individual vs the masses

In the book Mountains Beyond Mountains by Tracy Kidder, an interesting question arises. “Is it irresponsible to consider the life of a single patient who is dying of a disease but has a chance at survival more important than the collective lives of the masses who suffer from a disease that will not take their lives, but ails them?“ In a poignant chapter, two doctors under the watch of Dr. Paul Farmer sacrifice everything for an acutely ill Haitian child who has a hope at survival, even to their own fiscal expense. Would one consider their actions irresponsible? Stupid? “They gave all to save one measly life” some might say. However, isn’t life sacred? Should we not tend to the needs of a single person whose very survival depends on when and how their treatment is administered, where a passing day could mean one less day to survival. Is that irresponsible? Then again, we could say that the money used to save the individual may have been used to cure the masses who were in need of aid. Wouldn’t that be addressing the needs of many individuals? That is a valid argument, don’t get me wrong on that, but I will point back to the question “Isn’t life sacred?” Shouldn’t we, as humans, see that the importance of a single life outweighs the not-so-pressing needs of the masses? I know I talk from a viewpoint that is based on my Christian beliefs, but wouldn’t somebody of a different religion believe the same way?

Let me close with this situation: You have saved up $20,000 dollars for charity that feeds the needy, however, on the eve of the donation, your only child is involved in a car accident and the money required for the surgery to save his/her life is $20,000. What would you do? This is your child. I would save the child. Wouldn’t you do the same too? How then, will the sacrifice required to save a single life be wasted because of the needs of the masses? Imagine yourself as the parent of that child. Would you give all you have to save a life? That, is for you to decide