Should people be allowed to sell years off their lifespan in exchange for large sums of money?

The idea of selling years off one’s lifespan for money raises profound ethical, philosophical, and legal questions about autonomy, value, and the meaning of life. In this hypothetical but increasingly discussed concept, individuals could voluntarily trade a portion of their remaining years for substantial financial compensation—potentially through future medical technology capable of measuring and transferring life expectancy. The concept intersects with bioethics, human rights, and economic inequality, challenging how society defines ownership of one’s body and time. Supporters of the idea often point to bodily autonomy and freedom of choice: if someone fully understands the risks, should they not be allowed to make such a trade? Critics worry about exploitation, especially of vulnerable populations, and the moral implications of commodifying human life. This raises comparisons to organ sales, surrogacy, and other contested markets involving the human body. Philosophically, it echoes centuries-old debates in ethics and religion over whether life is a possession to be traded or a sacred, non-transferable gift. Historically, literature and folklore—from Faustian bargains to dystopian science fiction—have explored the dangers of trading life for material gain. Today, with advances in biotechnology and data-driven health predictions, the question is moving from fantasy toward potential feasibility, forcing society to confront the price it might put on human time.