Anadoru:
By the same token, is it right to refuse treatment to terminally ill patients?
It depends a bit on what we're giving up by treating them, I'd say. Is the patient just spending their own money, so only just reducing their kids inheritance? Sure, let'em have any treatment they want. Or is it tax-payer financed, and thus taking money away from someone or something else where it might cause a lot more good? Then it's a much more difficult question. When it's private insurance covering it, it's a bit of both. If everyone gets to choose if their insurance covers such treatment, then no real problem, because you end up paying for it yourself before you get there (at least on average). But if we're talking about looking at insurance is required to cover, then it's a bit of the second situation, because everyone ends up paying for the persons end of life treatment, even if they don't think it's a good buy themselves.
Anadoru:
In other words, how do you put a value on a life?
It's certainly not easy to do, and I don't envy the people who have to make such decisions. But people certain do have to, and there are ways of going about it. In a very simple example you can say things like "For $X we can extend this guys life for 2 months, and he'll be in extreme pain the whole time. OR we can cure 50 toddlers of a life-threatening disease and give them a very good chance of a normal life." When you come at it less from a "is this worth $X" point of view, and more from a "what are we giving up by spending this $X on this" point of view its because more tractable of a problem.
Anadoru:
In addition, should we consider this differently for people in idfferent situations? For example, is it more acceptable to give treatment to a married mother of four than a single person with no children?
In a perfect world, yeah, probably we should. Will it be practical to do so in many cases? Probably not.
Anadoru:
I think that I would take any chance at extra time that I was presented, but I can understand people's decision not to. The thing that would make me uneasy is someone else deciding that a patient cannot have that time.
I'd say it's less an issue of anyone deciding that a patient cannot have that time, and more of an issue of someone deciding that if a patient wants that time, they'll have to pay for it themselves. It's not so much being told "you can't get this treatment" and more "we can't afford to buy this treatment for you, but feel free to buy it yourself if you can." Still not nice news to hear, especially for people who simply can't afford it, but better than a simple "you're not allowed," I'd say.