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.
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.