Putting a price on life

I wanted to write this before Edmonton's municipal election, which happened this week, but night shifts and overtime made it difficult. Now that my schedule is more normal, I'm going to comment on one of the big issues in that election: the Edmonton City Centre Airport.

In case you're not all that familiar with Edmonton, we have two airports. The City Centre Airport (ECCA) is near downtown, and it only serves small planes including charters and air ambulances. The International Airport is outside of the city limits, about 26 km from downtown, and it serves the vast majority of people flying in and out of the Edmonton area. Last year, Edmonton's city council decided to close the ECCA, eventually. This became an issue in this year's election campaign.

Since most Edmontonians don't actually use that airport, one of the biggest arguments for keeping it open was for air ambulances. Edmonton has the closest major hospitals to many northern communities. Moving the air ambulance flights (which are typically in airplanes, not helicopters) to the International Airport would make it take longer to get to a major hospital, typically about 8 minutes longer (more in bad weather), a fairly short time compared to the hours it would take to stabilize the patient in the northern community, get them on a plane, and fly to Edmonton. Even so, 8 minutes could mean the difference between life and death for a very small number of patients.

The airport needs some upgrades to keep it open (I don't think airport revenue is enough to cover this), and if it's redeveloped into something else, the city stands to collect more taxes from that land. So is it worth the money to keep it open to save a few lives? I heard one candidate in this election say, "You can't put a price on life." I'd like to agree with that, but in practice, we put a price on life all the time. If we really don't put a price on life, why don't we build a major hospital in every northern community, so that people don't have to fly to Edmonton in emergencies? That would save far more lives than keeping the ECCA open.

Although there's not much chance of the government funding all those hospitals, maybe the money saved by shutting the ECCA down could be put toward other health care improvements, like reducing wait times in emergency rooms. Maybe that would save more lives. (Yes, I'm aware that closing the ECCA mainly affects the municipal government's revenue and expenses, and it's the provincial and federal governments that pay for health care. But their revenue all comes from the same place--us. Maybe the municipal government will be able to cut taxes a bit and the provincial government can raise taxes a bit to pay for the improvements.)

So in conclusion, instead of protesting against the government "putting a price on life," let's ask instead how the government can use our money to save the most lives and improve people's health the most.