jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 2:58 pm
I'm not sure at all what is illogical about what I'm saying. If there ends up being a situation in which critical healthcare resources need to be rationed (because of this disease), I don't think it's at all unreasonable to deprioritize people who broke rules designed to prevent spread of this disease.
It's NOT illogical. And it's NOT unreasonable.
But it IS immoral. It IS unethical. And it IS destructive of the basic social contract, the basic agreement between the state and its citizens. The implications and ramifications and extended consequences are unimaginably horrible. And adding the conditional "(because of this disease)" doesn't change any of that, unless this is PURELY an academic exercise.
This being a college basketball message board, I think even the phrase "academic exercise" might be overstating things some.
That said, I don't find anything particularly immoral about an outcome where, in a version of the trolley problem that is modified such that the trolley will run over one person, it runs over the person who was playing on the tracks (as opposed to someone whose car broke down on the tracks).
I think calling it a version of the trolley problem minimizes and subjectifies the matter. There are protocols in medicine in general, and in triage situations in particular, established over centuries and designed to ensure the best patient outcomes. "Was he was asking for it?" is not one of the variables in these protocols.
A corollary question: Should we prioritize treatment to ensure that people who entered this country illegally, after March 1, receive treatment of no kind whatsoever unless and until all citizens and resident aliens have received treatment first? If not, why not? Weren't they also asking for it?
The fact of the matter is that prioritizing treatment based on stupidity in acquiring the disease is as much a violation of basic human rights and dignity in the former case as it is in the latter.
And to revert to another point that I skipped over: the transplant example doesn't translate exactly here because transplant rationing hinges on expected future behavior, not past behavior. Future behavior is often predicted by past behavior, but past behavior is not explicitly the concern. And with a virus, the presumption (at least for the time being) is that expected future behavior is irrelevant.
jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 2:58 pm
I'm not sure at all what is illogical about what I'm saying. If there ends up being a situation in which critical healthcare resources need to be rationed (because of this disease), I don't think it's at all unreasonable to deprioritize people who broke rules designed to prevent spread of this disease.
kind of a forced Darwinism, eliminating the dumb, but i’m down
jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 2:58 pm
I'm not sure at all what is illogical about what I'm saying. If there ends up being a situation in which critical healthcare resources need to be rationed (because of this disease), I don't think it's at all unreasonable to deprioritize people who broke rules designed to prevent spread of this disease.
It's NOT illogical. And it's NOT unreasonable.
But it IS immoral. It IS unethical. And it IS destructive of the basic social contract, the basic agreement between the state and its citizens. The implications and ramifications and extended consequences are unimaginably horrible. And adding the conditional "(because of this disease)" doesn't change any of that, unless this is PURELY an academic exercise.
This being a college basketball message board, I think even the phrase "academic exercise" might be overstating things some.
That said, I don't find anything particularly immoral about an outcome where, in a version of the trolley problem that is modified such that the trolley will run over one person, it runs over the person who was playing on the tracks (as opposed to someone whose car broke down on the tracks).
Two people get infected with COVID-19 at their grocery store. Both get very ill and head to a hospital in their area.
Person A goes to Hospital A and Person B goes to Hospital B. If your triage solution is allowed, the doctor making the triage call at Hospital A could decide that going to a grocery store is a reasonable action and treat them at the appropriate time while the doctor at Hospital B could decide that since the patient's grocery store does offer deliveries (for a fee) that the patient was reckless and move the patient to the "this dumbass got himself infected" list.
I don't need an ER doc to be the person deciding what's right and what's wrong. Their job is to save as many lives as possible.
If I get this and end up in an ER, I have no problem with a doctor telling me "we think the guy that came in after you is going to die if he doesn't get immediate treatment so we need you to sit down and wait". I would have a huge problem with "we think you might have been acting irresponsibly and are thus punishing you". I would have a very difficult time maintaining my composure and self control if that were to happen. And that's not good for anyone involved. Delays over the inevitable clashes between doctors and frustrated patients would be costly to the care of everyone in the facility.
A woman I am friends with posted this about 45 minutes ago. She actually believes it.
"Isn’t it Amazing that Bill Gates Owns The Patent For Coronavirus and Owns The Vaccine. He is also A Partner In the Lab In Wuhan China".
I asked her how he got "the patent for Coronavirus", how he can "own a vaccine" that doesn't even exist, and told her there is more than 1 lab in Wuhan - please tell me which one he is a partner in.
Grandma wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 5:01 pm
A woman I am friends with posted this about 45 minutes ago. She actually believes it.
"Isn’t it Amazing that Bill Gates Owns The Patent For Coronavirus and Owns The Vaccine. He is also A Partner In the Lab In Wuhan China".
I asked her how he got "the patent for Coronavirus", how he can "own a vaccine" that doesn't even exist, and told her there is more than 1 lab in Wuhan - please tell me which one he is a partner in.
Would love to know her response to this, Gutman. Warming up her spot in the "Worst People in the World" thread.
jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 2:58 pm
I'm not sure at all what is illogical about what I'm saying. If there ends up being a situation in which critical healthcare resources need to be rationed (because of this disease), I don't think it's at all unreasonable to deprioritize people who broke rules designed to prevent spread of this disease.
kind of a forced Darwinism, eliminating the dumb, but i’m down
Seems consistent with assumption of risk. I realize medical care isn't tort law. And I realize it won't happen. But it feels right.
jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 2:58 pm
I'm not sure at all what is illogical about what I'm saying. If there ends up being a situation in which critical healthcare resources need to be rationed (because of this disease), I don't think it's at all unreasonable to deprioritize people who broke rules designed to prevent spread of this disease.
kind of a forced Darwinism, eliminating the dumb, but i’m down
Seems consistent with assumption of risk. I realize medical care isn't tort law. And I realize it won't happen. But it feels right.
we have two supervisors at work that have downplayed this mess since the beginning, and while i don’t necessarily wish i’ll on them, i think it would be rather karmic if they were to get infected
The outrage festers with multiple headlines almost every day. The federal response to this virus has been so mismanaged it will take years to disentangle all the deadly consequences. And then there is the president himself, bereft of even a passing sense of empathy for all those suffering. There are his lies, the diversion of governmental energy to fuel his fragile ego, the overlay of corruption, and his authoritarian attacks on the press.
I could fill paragraph after paragraph listing actions and statements by this administration that are outrageous and dangerous when measured by any yardstick of acceptable human behavior. I know there are millions of Americans who feel similarly. I know we cannot become inured to this, that democracy depends on an accurate accounting of all the transgressions against truth and decency. And yet, I must confess, there are days when I wonder about the right approach. I know President Trump wants to see this as a war of attrition, if he can just wear down the opposition he will emerge victorious. But we have a long way to go before November, and as the lines of voters in Wisconsin suggested, people are reved up to choose a very different type of leadership.
I think of an analogy of a military on high alert. There are times when each person must take the watch, to look out on the horizon with an unflinching eye for any possible danger. The purpose of this is to allow other soldiers to sleep, thus resting for their turn on the watch and for any battle ahead.
As we sit hunkered down, consuming the flood of news at the national level, we are in essence all on the watch all the time. I worry it is neither sustainable nor advisable. There are many other efforts that need our energy, especially in these times. We should be aware about the needs of our community, about how we can help. We need to tend to our personal and professional relationships, checking in on friends and family. And perhaps, most importantly, we cannot forget to tend to our own wellbeing. We will need to be strong and healthy to take on the challenges that we all will face as a nation and a global community in the weeks, months, and years ahead.
Don't get me wrong. I will continue to report on this administration. I will continue to share news that I believe needs to be shared. We cannot become pollyannaish. We cannot normalize the leadership void we are witnessing. But neither can we become consumed. President Trump is who he is. He will not change. The battle to not let him define the soul of this country will take place at the ballot box. It will take place in how the press covers him. But it will also take place in the hearts and minds of the American citizenry. Outrage is a powerful emotion that can change history. But so is hope, empathy, and the connections to our community. And those need to be cultivated as well in these times of crisis.
So take it from this old newsman. It's ok to take a break. It's ok to not know about every injustice. It's ok to breathe or read a book or watch a silly movie. The accounting is ongoing. You can tune in later and catch up. There are people on the watch. And there is much more to the world that will demand our attention, and more importantly, our love.
Grandma wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:39 am
Dan Rather posted this about 30 minutes ago.....
The outrage festers with multiple headlines almost every day. The federal response to this virus has been so mismanaged it will take years to disentangle all the deadly consequences. And then there is the president himself, bereft of even a passing sense of empathy for all those suffering. There are his lies, the diversion of governmental energy to fuel his fragile ego, the overlay of corruption, and his authoritarian attacks on the press.
I could fill paragraph after paragraph listing actions and statements by this administration that are outrageous and dangerous when measured by any yardstick of acceptable human behavior. I know there are millions of Americans who feel similarly. I know we cannot become inured to this, that democracy depends on an accurate accounting of all the transgressions against truth and decency. And yet, I must confess, there are days when I wonder about the right approach. I know President Trump wants to see this as a war of attrition, if he can just wear down the opposition he will emerge victorious. But we have a long way to go before November, and as the lines of voters in Wisconsin suggested, people are reved up to choose a very different type of leadership.
I think of an analogy of a military on high alert. There are times when each person must take the watch, to look out on the horizon with an unflinching eye for any possible danger. The purpose of this is to allow other soldiers to sleep, thus resting for their turn on the watch and for any battle ahead.
As we sit hunkered down, consuming the flood of news at the national level, we are in essence all on the watch all the time. I worry it is neither sustainable nor advisable. There are many other efforts that need our energy, especially in these times. We should be aware about the needs of our community, about how we can help. We need to tend to our personal and professional relationships, checking in on friends and family. And perhaps, most importantly, we cannot forget to tend to our own wellbeing. We will need to be strong and healthy to take on the challenges that we all will face as a nation and a global community in the weeks, months, and years ahead.
Don't get me wrong. I will continue to report on this administration. I will continue to share news that I believe needs to be shared. We cannot become pollyannaish. We cannot normalize the leadership void we are witnessing. But neither can we become consumed. President Trump is who he is. He will not change. The battle to not let him define the soul of this country will take place at the ballot box. It will take place in how the press covers him. But it will also take place in the hearts and minds of the American citizenry. Outrage is a powerful emotion that can change history. But so is hope, empathy, and the connections to our community. And those need to be cultivated as well in these times of crisis.
So take it from this old newsman. It's ok to take a break. It's ok to not know about every injustice. It's ok to breathe or read a book or watch a silly movie. The accounting is ongoing. You can tune in later and catch up. There are people on the watch. And there is much more to the world that will demand our attention, and more importantly, our love.
He should on air with falsified documents to prove his point.
