A person's inherent worth has little to do with what they can do, and other letters

Regarding the Vital Signs blog post “Will Dr. Emanuel opt for death at 75? Maybe not”, the value of life is not in what we do, but who we are. Equating actions, or the ability to perform them, to our ultimate worth is relative. Actions are open to judgment, while the person always has inherent worth. There is no need to prolong life endlessly as we naturally age, but the value of life itself does not become less worthwhile. To arbitrarily set an age to die based on what one can or cannot do is odd. I have no interest in this ethical view and neither do I think it is reasonably sound.

Regarding the blog post on Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, when I worked at Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital in suburban Chicago, I'd sometimes have lunch outside the spinal cord center on sunny days with veterans prostrate on their gurneys, unable to move much but still able to enjoy sun, a smoke and conversation. I wonder what Doc Emanuel would make of their quality of life (or the expense of their care)?

Regarding the recent Vital Signs blog post “Wearable activity trackers: Do they help health and wellness?”, research on the sustainable use and value of “trackers” has shown a common thread: that behavior modification has not been addressed by the tracking platforms. Yes, social networking, coaching, gaming, peer-support nudging and more have all been incorporated, but specifically addressing behavior modification has been sorely lacking.

This is evidenced by the sad statistic of the inability to sustain engagement. In other words, the tracking devices end up in a drawer after less than nine months. Perhaps, tracker companies should employ behaviorists or psychologists to craft a solution. It concerns me that the industry is viewing wearable sensors as the next big collection point to fill the predictive analytics database.