I read this article on NICE a little while ago. What jumped out at me was just how low a value the Brits place on human life: about $22,750 for every six months of life. That implies a total value on human life of under $3 million, which is less than half of what American regulators derived from analyzing how much more people must be paid to take on risky jobs. And people got mad at them for placing the figure too low. That's also how, at least in theory, we calculate the losses in things like wrongful death lawsuits.
Even in PPP terms, British GDP is about 75% of America's, not half. Why do they value their lives so much lower?
Well, one possibility is that they don't--when assessing environmental threats, which is where that cost-per-life-saved was developed for the US. But this makes no rational sense; a life saved by environmental regulation is no more alive than a life saved by surgery. The difference is, of course, that in one case, the government actually has to spend money, while in the other, the government is simply halting economic activity, or forcing a private actor to spend money. While economically, these are no different, they seem very distinctive indeed to people with tax budgets.