Would current use of QALYs factor in some of the features you mentioned? I suppose the focus on lives saved is a criticism of the post not of GiveWells method in general?
My argument questions the ideas of lives saved, DALYs and QALYs as metrics—just like using lives saved as a metric, QALYs generally implicitly assume that death is worse than a very bad life, no matter the levels of mental suffering, pain, and physical debilitation.
I’m probably criticising GiveWell’s methods as much as the post- their methodology assumes that the value of saving lives/ averting deaths is positive.
I generally agree more with HLI’s ‘WELLBY’ approach, as long as negative WELLBYs are taken seriously.
Would current use of QALYs factor in some of the features you mentioned? I suppose the focus on lives saved is a criticism of the post not of GiveWells method in general?
My argument questions the ideas of lives saved, DALYs and QALYs as metrics—just like using lives saved as a metric, QALYs generally implicitly assume that death is worse than a very bad life, no matter the levels of mental suffering, pain, and physical debilitation.
I’m probably criticising GiveWell’s methods as much as the post- their methodology assumes that the value of saving lives/ averting deaths is positive.
I generally agree more with HLI’s ‘WELLBY’ approach, as long as negative WELLBYs are taken seriously.