The valuation of human costs is a necessity, but this task poses many problems of method. A team made of a philosopher, a psychologist and a physician has been working with economist researchers in order to look into the meaning that the preferences announced at the time of the inquiries on human costs by QALY methods could assume. These methods are often used to obtain a valuation of the impact of a health attack on people's quality of life. The methods--in the frame of the argument assumed by the economic theory on well-being--hypothesize that people's choices depend mainly on cognitive work. The qualitative interviews show that the psychological construction process for the announced preferences largely overlap this frame. In this paper the authors hastily tackle the factors which have an effect on the preferences. They conclude that the QALY methods don't seem to be able to assess the quality of life nori to valuate the damage that the quality of life could include.