It is impossible to do a cost-benefit analysis on something like that. It is worth any amount of money if the child can be saved. I'd go to the ends of the earth for my children.
Who knows what these children could end up being or doing as adults? Who knows what value they could end up bringing the world? What they might invent? What health issues they could solve? What priceless works of art they may create?
No it's not. We're dealing with the scarcity of goods and services here. Healthcare needs are unlimited and supply of the goods and services is constrained. Whatever the amount of money needed to save that child's life, you need to consider how many more children, not your own, could be saved instead had the money been spent on other people's children with life-threatening issues that are cheaper to treat.
Who knows what those other children who didn't get treatment so that this one could end up being or doing as adults? Who knows what value they could end up bringing the world? What they might invent? What health issues they could solve? What priceless works of art they may create?
What if this couple had been given the choice to forgo saving their own child's life and instead donate that $1 million to saving many children's lives in some other country that don't have the resources we have here in the US. Every time society chooses to save one life at considerable cost, it is also choosing to condemn others. What if you had to make the same choice, what would you do?
Who knows what these children could end up being or doing as adults? Who knows what value they could end up bringing the world? What they might invent? What health issues they could solve? What priceless works of art they may create?