Posted on 05/06/2008 7:51:17 AM PDT by Sam's Army
Stalin once said, in reference to the famine he caused in the Ukraine, "The death of a single person is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."
That snarky comment being said, I think that this particular study just gave voice to a hard reality that would be faced down in the event of a major epidemic (major, at least as I'd define it, as consisting of deaths in the millions): When there's not enough treatment to go around, the patients need to be triaged.
I *do* think that by discussing this topic, it lets the camel's nose in the tent. If it's acceptable in a major epidemic, what about a "minor" one? What about a "Health Crisis? Diabetes? And so on....
I'm all for planning, but some things just need to be tackled on an ad-hoc basis if they arise.
Personally, having been to school when Lifeboat Ethics was a required course, I can be ruthless on paper but would not want the decision in person.
And I would not judge someone’s fitness by age. A fifteen year old who is morbidly obese and in poor general health may be a much bigger risk than a 70 year old health nut in top condition.
And by the way, it is my esperience that the people doing the pushing aside and trampling are young men wearing iPod Binkies, who will gladly trample young and old, men and women, babies and small children because their Mommies told them they are Special....
It’s triage. At my advanced age, I don’t expect anyone to attempt to save my life at the expense of time and resources that could save a younger more viable person.
It’s just ridiculous to expect anything else in a disaster that creates massive fatalities.
Don’t you think people my age already know we are at the end of our lives?
Carnival!
You know what’s really appalling to me?
Most of those 85 and older SAVED THE WORLD from Nazism, Japanese Imperialism, and to a lesser extent Communism/Socialism (job unfinished, but next on our list, be advised).
And here comes a bunch of young, elite, “intellectual” assclowns writing reports that basically say let those people DIE because they’re not worth saving...assclowns who wouldn’t even BE here had it not been for this greatest generation...THAT generation would have been APPALLED at this idea; as a matter of fact, anyone suggesting that would have been shamed out of existence back when the folks who stormed Tarawa, parachuted into Normandy, stormed Iwo Jima, landed at Inchon, or survived the march from Chosin Reservoir were young.
Really...what a great society we’ve become. We let infants be killed because “hey, it’s my body, and my RIGHT...” and put people in jail when they protest the killing. Thereby murdering two or three entire generations of people. Stalin, Lenin, and Mao would be so proud...
Now, they’re floating the idea that “non-productive members” of society be deprived of medical care, and society does not recoil in horror, just merely nods and contemplates it as feasible... So proud, just...so proud...
And as for 85-yr olds pulling a trigger...EVERY 85 year old I know STILL has a gun and knows how to use it. THEY were/are American men who still understand what it took to make America the greatest country on Earth, and are EXTREMELY dismayed to watch it being dismantled by useless, socialist Eurotrash-wannabees. And I’d venture to say, if called upon again to defend the Republic, they would gladly do so.
Jefferson was right - every once in a while, a Republic needs to sweep out its trash...and I believe that time is once again approaching very quickly.
And as for judging people solely by their ability to breed, what about breeding age AIDS patients, or those with STDs that prevent them from breeding?
And how about high-risk babies in intensive care units, where they will be taking up an unconscionable number of nurses (the percentage of nurses to patients being higher there than in any other part of the hospital)? Should a severely damaged baby take precedence over a seventy year old whose business paid the taxes that built the hospital?
Most likely, care would go to those in the greatest need, but who have the greatest chance of survival. People older than 85 may have the greatest need, but they would be less likely to survive than younger, stronger individuals.
Sad, but there it is.
When 14 people are wheeled into the Emerg at the same time from a brutal traffic accident or mass shooting, and the triage nurse knows she has 5 OR’s to work with and all 14 need immediate surgery, the 14 year old is getting the OR before the 84 year old. When you dont even know who these people are, or their medical histories, the assumption is made that the 14 year old has the better shot at survival. The 84 year old gets shot up with palliatives and everyone hopes they hold on long enough to open up an OR for them.
Welcome to the real world, where children are prioritized over adults, and adults are prioritized over the elderly.
Do I really need to point out that if they are healthy, they don't need lifesaving care?
That's what I think is at the crux of this. Although triage is a part of the article, the discussion seems to me to be a peek into the future of what Socialized Medicine would bring...not saving more lives, but fewer.
Ping!
Bingo.
Really, triage nurses in ERs decide that certain patients will not get treated, period, end of story?
Triage is a legitimate practice, of course, but comparing “belly pain, you go in ahead of the guy with the cut toe even if he is dripping blood on the carpet” is a world away from “no treatment for you, Granny.”
Excellent point.
bump
Good point.
One would like to think that the nefarious "science" of eugenics died out over 60 years ago, with the defeat of Nazi Germany. But when serious (?) people advocate our allocating scarce medical resources on the basis of age, physical condition (i.e. the presence or absence of chronic diseases), and mental condition, it would seem that the Dr. Mengeles of the world are still among us.
I think that if a real pandemic like the 1918 flu hit us, we would have to make these chocies, and Flash’s point about the 1918 flu is quite valid. But Appleby’s mention of lifeboat ethics should give us all pause. The lifeboat and bomb shelter scenarios some of us were fed at school are designed to do what all relativists do to break down the idea of clear and immmutable moral precepts: present a “hard case” that makes them seem unworkable. That’s the camel’s nose under the tent.
Look what the pro-aborts bring out when they are trying to argue their point: What about rape, what about incest, what about a mother who is going to die or be disabled? This is the nature of relativist evil: Put the extreme case in place as an exception, and then move to normalizing it. Keep abortion legal using sympathy for rape victims, and kill a few thousand kids a day who were fathered in consensual sex.
So yes, if I’m a doctor, I can only save one patient and my two patients are a 15 year old and an 85 year old, I’m saving the 15 year old. But let’s be very wary of what the agenda is here.
Have you read about the principals of triage in a disaster?
Scarce medical resources in a disaster are allocated according to who can survive.
As for me, if a pandemic occurred and there were scarce resources, I think they ought to be used on the young. It makes sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.