People are dying for economical reasons all the time.

In most cases, when a person dies, there was an option to save them. Killed by a disease? With enough money, best doctors and medicine could be bought to save them. If that is not realistic, with some money they could be at least cryopreserved and given some chance of living again. Killed by a murderer? With enough money, there could have been a policeman standing on that street to prevent the crime. Killed by a random falling object? With enough money, something could be there to prevent the object from falling on someone's head. Killed by an obesity caused by unhealthy life style? I am sure that with enough money, something could be done to prevent this, too.

Thus speaking about not allowing the economy to kill people is merely an applause light. People die for economical reasons today, and they will also die tomorrow. The only choice we have is to move more money to some area, by taking the money from another area, so we can save some people from dying by cause X at the expense of more people dying by cause Y; and we can hope that by doing some we have increased the total value (total quality-adjusted life years, or whatever is your favorite metric).

In a perfect world, an answer to "is it worth spending $ 1 000 000 to save this person's life?" would always be yes, because in the imaginary perfect world you can always get the $ 1 000 000 without taking it from somewhere else. In real life we have choices more like "is it worth spending $ 1 000 000 to save this person's life? or should we instead let the person die and use the money to save lives of other ten people?". (And if you wish, you can make it more complicated by assuming that the first person is a Nobel price winner in medicine and invented a cure that saved millions of lives, but these days he is too old to invent anything more; and the other group contains one great poet, but also one murderer, et cetera.)