Well, there are two kinds of choices that are generally considered radically different.
One choice is providing some opportunity for further life beyond what's expected. That's generally considered something society likes but isn't obligated to provide. Society doesn't obligate it's member to spend money developing some miracle-extend that gives someone five more years.
The other choice is taking life that would normally be expected. That is something that society very much frowns on. If you could protect someone and you don't do it 'cause it would cost you money, you may wind-up in jail for murder.
Very quantitatively oriented people seem to have a hard time grasping why there's a difference here. But I think it's very rational in an evolutionary game-theoretic compact kind of way. Everyone is a member of society and values everyone else's life highly, more highly than immediate material things though maybe not more highly than other people's lives. This gives member of society basic security - you are thinking my insulin might worth just stealing and selling on the open market, me murdering you first might be my best strategy. You can see where things break down? The "social contract" is kind of the way around this.