|
I'm not sure what the problem is here. Are people saying that doctors should have looked at this kid and decided that he didn't deserve to live?
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
tumblr.txt posted:If he was the only one in need of a heart, of course he should get it. So, the lives of people with criminal records are worth less than the lives of people without criminal records? Further, doctors should attempt to evaluate the relative worth of the lives of their patients and base medical decisions on their conclusions?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
tumblr.txt posted:All else being equal, if you have to choose, yes. A thousand times yes. I am astounded that there is any disagreement here. You're astounded that people object to doctors personally deciding which lives are more valuable than others? Or that people object to the idea that a criminal record makes one's life inherently worth less than that of others? In either case, if you are actually astonished that people disagree with your position, I'm afraid that the most charitable conclusion that I can reach is that you are fairly ignorant of questions ethics and morality, and that your astonishment is the result of unquestioned assumptions being challenged and reevaluated. For example, your position disallows any idea of inherent human rights. If one life is less valuable than another, and the difference is decided by the state, and may result in deprivation of life-saving treatment (a basic human right), then humans only have rights at the pleasure of the state. In a medical context, this has disturbing implications. So just to be clear, do you think it is obvious that a juvenile record should strip citizens of their basic human rights? Likewise, making the decision to not provide life-saving medical intervention cuts right to the heart of medical ethics. Most doctors take an oath specifically to respect human life and (in more recent years) human rights. Do you think that a criminal record is sufficient cause to exempt doctors from their oaths?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 12:38
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Look up the word 'triage.' Then grow up, lifeless muppet. Organ allocation is not triage in the sense it is used in medical practice. Even if it were, do you believe that priority should be given to patients of higher social and/or economic status (criminal record status) during triage?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
tumblr.txt posted:To throw an extreme example your way: Patient A is an 85-year old chain smoking serial-killer. Patient B is a 30 year old genius who has won multiple Nobel prizes. They both need a lung transplant to survive, but there is only one set of lungs to go around. Age and chain-smoking are medical factors, but assuming that there was no net difference in their chances of surviving after the transplant, then they are both simply patients. As a doctor, one takes an oath to treat patients in a certain way, including fairly and without prejudice. The express point of such an oath is to provide a statement that one will not make special exceptions to the principles of medical ethics on the basis of their own judgement. quote:Do I think it's ethical for doctors to step in and say it's idiotic to give them to patient A, so therefore patient B gets her life saved? Absolutely. Taking a "all life is special, let's flip a coin to see who wins the lungs" view is foolish in a world with finite resources. So, you think that it's okay for a doctor to personally decide whether or not to provide life-or-death care on the basis of their (your) judgement that it would be "idiotic" to do otherwise? quote:don't think it's a basic human right to be entitled to a finite and desperately needed resource. Practically it is impossible, otherwise we would not have waiting lists. Is it lifesaving medical treatment? If so, it is a basic human right. You can fail to provide a basic human right on the basis of limited ability, but the question here is now to allocate that ability. An allocation based on human rights necessarily excludes social and economic considerations, such as criminal records. quote:Giving the heart to someone who isn't going to throw their life away would arguably result in greater benefit to human life. How does a doctor decide who is going to "throw their life away" and who is not? How should one decide what the relative worth of one life is, compares to another? Do you believe that this decision could be made on the basis of a juvenile criminal record?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
tumblr.txt posted:A Senator vs Joe the sheet-metal worker? Other concerns should probably be the deciding factor. All I'm getting from this is that you want decisions to be made based on your gut evaluation of worth, combined with a vague utilitarianism. As a principal, though, you seem to think that both human rights and other attempts at acting in a principled and fair manner should be secondary to preconceived and unexamined markers of social worth. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
tumblr.txt posted:So the serial killer with 5-10 years of life left should have equal access to the organ a Nobel prize winner with 60 years left, and letting the Nobel prize winner die due to a coin-flip is only fair. Gotcha. I noted age as a factor and addressed it. quote:With one organ, there may be multiple patients. The medical profession has to pick someone. By giving it to one patient, they are deciding not to provide life-or-death care to the others. I mentioned that you can fail to provide medical service on the basis of inability. In order to determine who receives treatment you draw up a list based on medical factors (of which there are many) and otherwise allocate organs on a first-come-first-served basis. quote:You're playing with words here. Practically a "human right" that many people go without due to finite resources is no right at all. Maybe it should be, but until we have replicators, we have to decide who gets what organ. If we have to make that decision why should it be made blindly, with no attention paid to the benefit (or determent) to society for a given choice? I've already defined how it is a human right. That is not "playing with words." We intentionally make them "blindly" because it is not appropriate for a doctor, or even a society, to value one life over another when it comes to medical treatment. For example, if a doctor strongly believed that Christians contribute more to society than anyone else, would you be cool with hearts being allocated on the basis of church attendence?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I'm enjoying how the D&D radicals are unironically complaining about trained medical experts for implementing federally mandated, racially- and fiscally-blind queue systems, which they are effectively labeling death panels. Instead they seem to be supporting religious organizations using their political weight to instill favoritism. You know, because that's so progressive rather than just being politically expedient for this one kid. Well, the public pressure brought to light the fact that the primary medical reason for the decision (his record of compliance with doctors' orders) was incorrect. Is your problem here with public oversight and criticism of technocratic institutions? You seem to be attributing that position to the political left, incorrectly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Kaal posted:[Citation Needed] And good luck because all that information is tied up under the HIPAA Act until 50 years after his death. Several reasons have been given for the decision; only one medical. Although some digging reveals that the decision was made on the basis of non-compliance with the legal system, not with doctors' orders. So the doctor made a call based not on medical facts, but on his personal assessment of the social worth of this patients' life. That should not be something anyone is comfortable with a doctor making, especially someone with progressive ideals. Many public organizations are religious, and within the black community many of the most prominent and accessible sources of advocacy are religious. Are you saying that an institution should be automatically disqualified from public discourse because it is religious?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:Who should make it if not a doctor (I think it was some kind of medical board in this case)? They're the ones charged with responsibility here, and someone has to make the call. And in this case overriding the doctor's decision meant this piece of garbage took a heart that should have gone to someone worthwhile. As far as a doctor is concerned, factors such as social and economic status cannot ethically factor into treatment decisions. That is a matter of ethics, and is the subject of oaths taken as a doctor. It may be obvious to you that he was a "piece of trash," but the doctor looked at a kid with a juvie record and bad grades and decided that this was sufficient cause to deny lifesaving treatment.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Again, [Citation Needed]. Unless you're just quoting the parents, who made that accusation to attract the media but never substantiated it in any way. The hospital sent the parents a letter explaining the decision. quote:Are you seriously suggesting that religious organizations should be getting involved in medical policy? Should people start getting wealthy patrons to ensure they have access to medical care? Exactly how far back do you want to turn the clock on progressive ideals in your quest to defend this kid? Um yes? Religious organizations were prominent opponents of eugenics, for example, and I don't see any reason why religious organizations should be barred from public advocacy. You seem to think there is some fundamental opposition between religion and progressive politics. That assumption is ignorant.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Yes and the letter states clearly that the decision was based on a history of non-compliance. Here's the letter: http://genius.com/2091762/Childrens...-non-compliance In which case they were merely incorrect, since it turns out that he took his medications fine. quote:Well I don't share your faith in the benefits of religious intimidation and theocratic favoritism. Strong-arming a hospital to select a specific patient in lieu of another goes way beyond "public advocacy". This is clueless and melodramatic. Seriously, get a grip and learn a little about civil society.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:GBS needs someone undeniably worse than they are to make themselves feel better, but they'd make do with this dead kid. I'm pretty sure the peak GBS version would be an obese neckbeard furry who died post-op while loving a Rainbow Dash plushie. Bonus points if he also posed like a gangster in FB photos.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 05:34
|
|