Right now, from a society-wide perspective, the healthcare I’ve been getting to keep me temporarily alive against a squamous cell carcinoma onslaught probably fails the cost-benefit test.[1] In the short term, resources are finite and the tremendous financial cost of care likely isn’t worth the benefit of my life, relative to the costs of other interventions that would heal people with less serious maladies and longer life expectancies. Probably it sounds strange for me to say: “Keeping me alive isn’t justified,” but I think it worthwhile to be intellectually rigorous and honest even about sensitive matters like the literal monetary value of life. In some abstract metaphysical sense, human life might be beyond value, but we practically put a price tag on lives and risk to life all the time (example: “Studies of real-world situations produce relatively consistent results, suggesting that average Americans value a year of life at $100,000 to $300,000”).

I don’t have a strong view about the particular numbers, but the general principle is sound, and outfits like Givewell.org search “for the charities that save or improve lives the most per dollar.” Givewell’s top charities right now are for malaria prevention (“In 2022, we directed funding to the Malaria Consortium to support this program at an estimated average cost-effectiveness of $5,000 per life saved”) and vitamin A deficiency amelioration (“In 2022, we directed funding to Helen Keller International to support this program at an estimated average cost-effectiveness of $5,000 per life saved”). Unfortunately, “charities” like Greenpeace prefer to murder children by holding up “golden rice” that has vitamin A in it, but you can read more about that terrible choice at the link. Five-thousand dollars is less than the cost of a typical treatment I receive, but the mystery statements I get from my insurance companies indicate that more than $5,000 is being spent on me per month (though the numbers have more than a whiff of the made-up about them).[2] Recurrent / metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R / M HNSCC) is incurable, too, so extra dollars don’t buy much time, and the time they do buy is degraded by pain, fatigue, inability to swallow, and so on.

The big caveat to saying that I’m not worth keeping alive, though, outside the value the people who love me claim I provide, is that I’m also generating data for clinical trials helps move the state-of-the-art forward. Participating in the MCLA-158 / petosemtamab trial, for example, yielded one more data point showing that petosemtamab shrinks notoriously hard-to-treat R / M HNSCC. By pursuing treatment through clinical trials, I’m helping others in the future (more on that later). Still, my quality of life is low, and while treatment has been extending my life, it almost certainly won’t lead to remission. Even if a clinical-trial drug somehow leads to complete remission, I’ll never be able to sleep or speak normally again. Life without good speech or sleep or swallowing or chewing is not easy, yet I’m trying to continue to contribute to the human enterprise within the many limitations I’m subject to. A few months ago, my brother casually referred to me being disabled, and I was momentarily confused: Who was he talking about? But he was in fact right: I’m disabled and unlikely to ever be able to think or work in the way I did before losing my tongue, which also lowers the value of any healthcare I receive.[3]

Some of these musings are adapted from Derek Parfit’s Reasons and Persons, and more directly from Peter Singer, who is I think the first to posit hypotheticals along the lines of “You are wearing an expensive suit and shoes worth many thousands of dollars. You see a child drowning in a pond. Would you leap in to save the child, and ruin your suit in the process?” Everyone says yes. But then why not donate the same amount of money to save a child in Somalia, or wherever? Aren’t those two morally and logically equivalent? Yet hardly anyone lives that way, myself included. There is some kind of immediacy bias in the human mind, where something proximate to us registers as more vital than something distant in space and time.

The rejoinder to the idea that one should curtail status consumption to donate to save distant people is usually something like: “They are poor and their healthcare systems work poorly due to social and government dysfunction; fix that dysfunction so that they become rich and the apparent trade-off will go away.” Countries like South Korea and Taiwan used to be desperately poor and now are rich because they adopted smart policies. Nothing is stopping many African countries from doing the same. India abandoned autarky and embraced markets, and now it is far richer than it used to be. Countries like Syria and Iran are not poor due to a lack of donations, they’re poor due to horrific governance by Assad and mad, freedom-hating mullahs.

Hypothetically, even a billionaire would probably hesitate to pay $1 billion for a single extra day of life; the vain and egotistical would prefer to build a monument or something, versus one day more. Most of the world’s poorest people would find a way to pay $1 if it could extend their life by five years. Between those extremes lie real-world tradeoffs, which are of course hardly ever so clean.

Insurance further muddies matters, because if someone else is picking up the tab, most of us want more treatment than we would otherwise. European countries with public health systems solve this problem through committees that decide which treatments are worth it; they also wrangle with drug companies to set price caps (the U.S. is the market in which drug companies make all their money, and consequently the FDA is the limiting factor on new treatments, which is why I complain so much and so vociferously about them). It’s not surprising that I personally would prefer other people pay more for me, and I personally would like to pay lower premiums, while everyone else would like the same for themselves. Moral hazard is operating. The U.S. has mostly chosen a high-cost, high-care regimen, while European countries have mostly chosen a lower-cost, lower-care regimen, which limits care for the walking dead like myself.

Scott Alexander observes that he’s “seen patients with terminal illnesses who are very happy they chose to just let it progress and not spend their last few years in medical trials, and other patients who are very happy that medical trials gave them another year or two with their family and whatever else they were trying to accomplish.” For me, I’m continuing to do clinical trials for the sake of Bess, and spending more time with Bess. Absent her, I’d have taken the opioid road in June 2023. Recovery from the total glossectomy demanded 24/7 care that I wouldn’t have been able to receive from anyone else, and I wouldn’t really have had enough to live for. We humans really live for one another,[4] and without other people and especially love, why bother?

Some of the healthcare I’ve received easily passes the cost-benefit test. Take the R / M HNSCC that’s killing me: I got a partial glossectomy in Oct. 2022. Mine had some high-risk features, but I was assured that, with radiation therapy, it wouldn’t recur (Bess recalls the exact words being, “Don’t worry, this won’t be what kills you”). If it hadn’t recurred, the costly surgery and radiation would’ve led to many more years of positive, fulfilling life. Hardly anyone will find surgery and radiation pleasant, but they left me without substantial, disabling deficits. In retrospect, however, I obviously should’ve been given chemo with the radiation, but at the time I was pleased to not need chemo, and I foolishly didn’t look deeper into the data on recurrence—which is common for HNSCC—and I didn’t seek second opinions. Some of those second opinions might’ve said: “Get the chemotherapy.”

Docs are justifiably reluctant to impose systemic chemo because of the side effects, and they have to weigh present bodily ravages against theoretical future ones when coming up with a treatment plan. But the future of cancer treatment is much less violent. Transgene, for example, has a personalized vaccine that is supposed to prevent HNSCC recurrence: “In the head and neck cancer trial to date, all patients treated with TG4050 have remained disease-free, despite unfavorable systemic immunity and tumor micro-environment before treatment.” That’s a tremendous boon, particularly if it doesn’t involve the deleterious side effects of chemo or radiation. Most of these personalized vaccines have essentially no side effects. Moderna’s mRNA-4157 platform looks great, not only in R / M HNSCC, but in melanoma and lung too. Right now mRNA-4157 is only being tested in the recurrent / metastatic setting, as far as I know, but the logical time to use it is probably when initial surgeries are done: cut the cancer, sequence it, and then vaccinate against it to prevent recurrence. Technology is going to reduce the trade-offs between “painful, difficult treatments with difficult short- and long-term side effects” and “successfully eliminating cancer.”

The future, which I’m distinctly though barely missing, is going to be brighter than the present. I’m reading a biography of Richard Feynman, whose first wife died of tuberculosis (TB) in part because the scientific / medical establishment wasn’t able to get its act together regarding antibiotics: “the first clinical trial of streptomycin” began with only two patients in the fall of 1944, despite TB being a death sentence. And it wasn’t until August 1945 “that the Mayo trial had expanded to as many as thirty patients.” Finally, “In 1947 streptomycin was released to the public”—two years too late for Arline Feynman.

Arline was at the end of the era of deadly bacterial infections; I’m at the end of one era of cancer treatment and the dawn of another, but I’m going to miss surviving because I’m a few years too early, and because the FDA so effectively blocks innovation, even for those of us with terminal illnesses who are happy to trial a new drug when the alternative is certain death. The terminally ill are not incompetent children incapable of understanding risks and giving consent, and the paternalism of the FDA, which intends to protect us from potential pharmaceutical harm, does so by choosing death as the lesser evil for patients like me, instead of giving us the choice to risk theoretical harm in exchange for the possibility of  a longer, better life. We should have a meaningful right to try.

Letting patients try isn’t just potentially good for the health of patients, it’s a financially sound decision for everyone: Pharma companies want to sell drugs. Insurance companies could save the extensive costs of ongoing treatments by supporting payment for innovative therapies like cancer vaccines that prevent recurrences. Since 45% of cancer diagnoses are in patients aged 20 – 64 years old, it would benefit the government by having a large chunk of taxpayers able to rejoin the workforce. That’s money in everyone’s pocket. That’s human flourishing, which the FDA is blocking.

There are other substantial, lesser-discussed costs to consider: for example, many trials are only available at a handful of hospital or clinic sites around the country, and finding an appropriate trial, even for patients in large metro areas with research-heavy institutions, means having to travel to the trial. I’ve not only been spending insurance companies’ money (“insurance companies’ money” is another way of saying “almost everyone’s money”); I’ve also had to pay for flights, accommodations, and incidentals to receive any treatment at all via clinical trials. We’d live in a better world if the FDA and drug companies would move to virtual, decentralized clinical trials, in which instead of me expensively shipping myself to a trial site, the drug company ships the drug in question to a local site that passes whatever quality metrics might be necessary, and I get treated locally.

Many potential sites already exist. HonorHealth Research is one, located in the Phoenix area about a fifteen-minute drive from me, and it seems like a reputable place for clinical trials. There’s no reason I can discern for not being able to ship the drug products to HonorHealth, give them specific instructions (“8mg of dexamethasone 1h prior to infusion, 50mg of Benadryl, watch for infusion reactions…”) and then have the doctors and nurses at HonorHealth carry out those instructions. Unfortunately, right now that’s not how the system works, and so I wind up on a lot of airplanes, when a 200ml bag of petosemtamab or PDL1V or whatever could instead be shipped to Phoenix.[5] The carbon footprint of flying me around has to be far greater than that of flying something that is like 1/200^th of my mass. America is not easy on the environment and so much superfluous flying makes things harder, despite my subscription to ClimeWorks’ direct air carbon capture service.[6]

Beyond that, not all care is automatically covered by insurance, and Bess and I have to make hard decisions about what might be worthwhile and what might not be. I’m thinking especially of circulating tumor DNA tests, as well as tumor DNA testing; though DNA tests can identify targetable mutations that could guide me to effective treatments, they are considered “not medically necessary” by insurance companies. Not medically necessary for whom?[7]

I don’t know if there’s a takeaway from this essay, other than that life is hard and many decisions aren’t easy. I also appreciate everyone who has donated to the Go Fund Me my brother set up, and which has allowed me to pursue clinical trials and live far longer than I would’ve otherwise. Bess and my family and my friends appreciate that, too! A future in which personalized vaccines prevent the hardship I’ve experienced, and the death I’m to experience shortly, is also good, and the FDA is bad for holding back medical progress and inflicting so much misery on me. We can and should do better, rather than letting poorly structured bureaucratic mandates harm and kill thousands, if not millions, of people like me annually.

If you’ve gotten this far, consider the Go Fund Me that’s funding ongoing care.

---

[1] Adapted from comments originally left on Astral Codex Ten.

[2] I have not yet been eradicated, but neither has malaria, despite the charges. I’d wager that cancer will eradicate me before humans eradicate malaria, alas. There are malaria vaccines rolling out now, which is a tremendous advance in terms of human flourishing, and yet malaria vaccines wind up not dominating the news, which focuses on picayune status fights among political actors.

[3] I’m still dancing for my bread! Hence this new essay.

[4] Which is one of the many problems with pervasive narcissism.

[5] This is likely the FDA’s hand, because any misstep from an “approved” lab or site or infusion center might mean a multi-million dollar loss, as the data is considered unreliable. There are sites that spend years trying to open a study, but are denied, because of a minor squabble with something in their lab that doesn’t meet mystery criteria. Since most hospital-quality labs across the country are capable of performing the same clinical testing, I find it hard to believe that this is actually a clinical concern. Anything that makes the system slower, worse, and more expensive reeks of FDA regulation.

[6] Despite the present precarity of the biosphere, and the fact that we’re blowing by a 1.5 degree C temperature rise from pre-industrial times, I’d like the future of humanity to be positive. Hardly anyone is remotely serious about making happen, however. Indifference and lassitude are human nature, I infer. I’m not exempt.    

[7] “Not medically necessary” is sometimes insurance company shorthand for “It’s more cost effective for you to die than for us to pay for this, even if there is established evidence that it could lead to scientifically validated treatment(s) for you.”