Yeah, but the trick seems to be to can kill thousands rather than one. Then you have the full might of the law out to protect you. Exhibit A is the Sacklers family.

▲

gruez an hour ago | parent [-]

Again, no. If some drug company killed a single person with a weird side effect that they buried, do you think it'll be discovered, much less prosecuted? The Sacklers got prosecuted because the opiod epidemic was huge, not because they passed some magical threshold so it's magically fine.

▲

b3ing an hour ago | parent [-]

But you can deny life saving treatments if you are a health insurance company

▲

gruez an hour ago | parent [-]

That's their job? It's not even limited to private insurance companies. Public health systems have lists of what is considered good value for money too, even if the treatments themselves are theoretically life saving. The US is the biggest market for new and rare drugs specifically because other countries consider the prices too high.

▲

slg an hour ago | parent [-]

>That's their job?

I mean you're the one who brought up hitmen. What's their job?

▲

gruez 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

If you think that denying a specific treatment (justified or otherwise) is comparable murder for hire, then I don't think there's anything worth discussing between the two of us.

	▲	slg 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, in my opinion an unjustified and profit motivated refusal to save a life is the same as intentionally taking that life. It's just the trolley problem and you're arguing that there is some innate nobility in refusing to touch the switch.