What, for example, are the ethics of spending so much money to keep people alive (well beyond the ‘natural’ point of death) when there are people who could be saved by a 5 cent drug?

But where do you draw the line? What is this ‘natural’ point? Should cancer, for example, be allowed to run its course or are there some diseases we can say strike people down well before their time, and should be cured?

I don’t have the luxury here of two ‘voices’ as in your post so I’m going to stop before I say something that one voice might find hard to defend! :p

If this evolution thing is true, shouldn’t we let survival of the fittest do its job?

Just kidding. But you are right, this culture is way too concerned with immortality.

cheers,
jim