[VAFreedom]

but i think in battle they always treat the sickest first right?

[dragnet2]

That’s how it was when I was in the military...The worst off were the first to be treated. Those with non-life threatening issues were treated last or later.

[Spktyr]

No, actually. The most badly injured that need help NOW are separated from those that can wait at least a little while. Of those needing help, there is a further division - those that are likely to survive treatment are helped first, those that are likely to die after treatment anyway are either left to die or will be treated after those more likely to survive are.

It is brutal, it has to be uncompromising, it has to be heartless. But it has to be done, otherwise limited resources are frittered away on patients that die and those that could be saved won’t be. Humanity was forced to figure this out after the horrific mass casualties of the Napoleonic wars, when wars started to become industrialized and wholesale instead of retail slaughter - the name itself is French. It didn’t really happen too much in the American Civil War, but it made a comeback in the enormous butcher’s bill of WW1 and it’s been with us since. Triage is “the division into three:” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage

If you’ve had *any* recent first aid/mass casualty event training, you are taught to do this. There isn’t a choice unless you have a Star Trek replicator sitting next to you printing out medical supplies and AI doctors.

[Theoria]

Stop initial threat. Stabalize, reasses. That reassessment is where the tough choices will come in.

On the sinking ship, our society has created the idea of women and children rescued first. Older men usually sacrifice themselves for the safety of all. I expect no different decisions today,

[romanesq]

“but i think in battle they always treat the sickest first right?”

No, those the worst injured are often given pain relief, nothing more.

[Boogieman]

“but i think in battle they always treat the sickest first right?”

Not if there is little chance of saving them and wasting their time trying would jeopardize other people who can be saved.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Not the sickest, no. They do a spot calculation to swiftly divide those needing treatment into three groups:

First group- -lightly wounded, those who will likely survive without immediate care

Second group, mortally wounded, -those who will likely die even with immediate care, and

Third group, gravely injured but treatable - those who are save-able, but whose life or death depends on quick intensive treatment.

Groups 1 and 2 are made comfortable as possible, and set aside.

It's group 3 that will get the lion's share of the treatment.

The other two aren't totally medically abandoned, but they're not prioritized for treatment until all the group 3 people are stabilized.

[Kozak]

but i think in battle they always treat the sickest first right?

Nope. They treat those who they think can survive.
If you are so wounded death is likely, you get marked “expectant”, and maybe get some morphine if available.

[CurlyDave]

...but i think in battle they always treat the sickest first right?..

Not really. If a patient is expected to die they receive minimal, or no treatment.

Then there is a balancing between chances of success and amount of treatment necessary. If you could survive but would take a lot of care, they may have to ration that care to those who will each take less, but in aggregate will take up all of the care available.

It sucks to be old.