This is important when discussing (eg) cancer treatments: a treatment may leave you alive for longer but in worse health — and therefore, it’s unclear which is preferable.

▲

rapidaneurism 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Arguably when left alive your health is by definition better than the alternative.

I suspect you mean the good health for a few months before death compared with a worse health during and after treatment. Still I had to make the quip.

	▲	nkrisc 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Everyone will die. The question is whether, say, two extra months spent in a miserable state is worth it.
	▲	burnt-resistor 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		QALY optimization doesn't necessarily optimize for quality of life like it claims on the tin, it optimizes for quantity of life. Would you like 1 year and unknown discomfort or 10 years and a colostomy bag? Near end-of-life interventions (in the US) tend to be unnecessary and leave patients worse off, and it's done because hospitals and doctors are greedy. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/surgery-near-end-...
	▲	zmgsabst 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		No — I meant worse health. You die in both scenarios, you live slightly longer (eg, 8 months versus 6 months) and during the overlap, you are less healthy than you would have been. Losing 6 months of seeing family, enjoying trips, etc due to side-effects from treatment just to live 2 months extra, but incredibly ill the whole 8 months. In my perspective: you experienced less total QALY by taking the treatment and had more time, in worse health. Even counting those 2 months at zero, the non-treatment option experiences more vitality, in total — because 2 sickly months at the end doesn’t offset 6 months of lost vitality immediately before.