You haven't stated universally agreed upon premises from
which you've used formal logic to deduce your conclusions.
Neither have I. It all boils down to personal preferences.
To be certain one is right doesn't make it rooted in "logic".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Elective Disease
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
which you've used formal logic to deduce your conclusions.
Neither have I. It all boils down to personal preferences.
To be certain one is right doesn't make it rooted in "logic".
I am, but you're impeding my ability to do so by playing games. No matter. *clicks ignore*
That's how licensed physicians do it.
In the OP I propose something fairer & better (IMO).
I have the luxury of no licensing constraints.
I think it is worth noting that in no instance was I rude, inconsiderate, or intentionally misleading. I simply tried to reframe the question to encourage discussion. Oh well.
So what is your opinion based on? If not spitefulness and a want to punish people, what else? My opinion is based on considering it logically and helping people based on need.
Personal values of responsibility & the rights of others.
Don't reward irresponsibility & recklessness.
So fat people, drug addicts, alcoholics, diabetics, people with STDs, suicidal people, race car drivers, etc. are all fair game for denying treatment? Where do we draw the line?
We Never Know
No Slack
I 100% agree with elective procedures taking a back seats. They are not emergency or life or death threat.
In a life or death threat, it should be first come, first severed.
The going on about the unvaccinated should come last because they made their choice...so did
-the drunk driver
-addict that OD'd
-the person choosing to eat twinkies and skittles instead of a healthy diet
-the depressed person who tried to commit suicide
- etc
Tell me in any justified way how these are any different than a person choosing not to get the vaccine and how they should take a back seat to any vaccinated person.
Prioritization is still useful. You offer additional
complexities, but they don't defeat the goal.
They just require more consideration.
Eschewing vaccination leads to "elective disease".
I find this makes them less worthy than others in
times of resource shortage.
Outside of the drunk driver, none of the others have chosen to become a threat to the people around them. That said, I do agree with you that the best way to handle it is a first come, first served basis (all other things being equal).
No it's not. There are signs up regarding heart attacks, and obviously anyone arriving in an ambulance or bleeding profusely gets to butt in line, thank goodness. I'd be dead today if it weren't for priorizing.
We Never Know
No Slack
Less worthy! Lol. Then any person not following a strict healthy diet, not exercising not taking vitimans, that smokes or drinks, etc are less worthy?
All other things being equal in a time of overwhelmed
hospitals, I'd prioritize maximization of successful
outcomes over first-come first served. Think of those
2 systems being simultaneous, but with focus upon
successful outcome being the primary driver.
This is starting to sound like eugenics, honestly.
We Never Know
No Slack
Generally speaking yes they are. If you want to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" we can take this in many directions.
Some of those would be factors.
For example, an alcoholic wouldn't qualify for a kidney transplant.
I say this is fair, given that kidneys are in short supply.
Why waste one on a drunk unlikely to have a successful outcome,
only to let another (better) recipient die, eh.
We Never Know
No Slack
Someone did make a post several months ago about killing all unvaccinated.
That is nothing but fear and untrust in the vaccine they took. Of course that's my opinion.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Not true.
Understood, here is my counter: how long does the unvaccinated individual have to wait? The theoretical situation in my head is this:
- An individual arrives due to COVID complications who does not have a vaccine.
- Medical resources are withheld as another individual who is vaccinated arrives with a similar rate of medical success (this sentence was hard, I hope it makes sense). This individual is granted access.
- Another individual arrives who is vaccinated, they are prioritized over the original patient.
- (repeat, etc)