Posted on 10/02/2020 9:29:18 AM PDT by Pining_4_TX
When we become evaluated by group/class, we lose our humanity
In making triage decisions involving allocation of scare resources, I suggest the approach needs to be holistic, encompassing ethical constructs legal principles, and public health practice. In more global terms, the question of who should be the first to receive the COVID-19 vaccine might be couched in terms of individual rights (including autonomy) versus a collaborative justice, doing “right” for society writ large. Bioethically speaking, I would prefer a more nuanced paradigm as articulated in the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at acsh.org ...
This is how socialism works.
The joke is on them!
I would refuse the vaccine if offered (or demanded).
Thaq is exactly backward. I would recommend that the elderly, front-line workers, and those with compromised immunity get the first opportunity to be vaccinated. They should choose, but those at highest risk should be first.
Good way to clean the deadwood out.
never let a crisis go to waste!
Do I really need an </s>
Ironically, how many lives were saved by denying ventilators, since we now know the incredible damage they cause?
Been a lot of that lately.
This is how socialism works.
—
They are Parliamentary democracies with elements of socialism especially in healthcare - however, the US has more socialist elements than they do.
In “socialist” China people were herded from their apartments or chained in and taken away to places where there were no facilities, no medicines, no doctors, no nurses, no drugs, and beds were 3 feet or less apart, all doors locked and only one way (in), all widows sealed shut and covered.
This is how socialism works.
Speaking in general, any nation that doesn’t take steps to protect the elderly and children, born or in the womb doesn’t deserve to exist.
“Socialism” doesn’t work, because it is a based upon false premises, a fundamental error in human nature.
It doesn’t matter whether talking about food, or “health care” or anything else. In the case of food, nobody put it better than Hayek or Friedmann or Sowell or whoever it was: “In socialism, people line up for bread. In a free market, the bread lines up for people.”
This is why in socialist societies, they put a price cap or “controls” on prices. It’s only “fair” for example, that bread doesn’t cost too much, after all, right? This sounds good, and strikes a chord with people, particularly young and idealistic types. Their heart might be in the right place, but it doesn’t work that way. So the shelves are bare.
“How much for a loaf of bread?” and the answer is “Same as always. 5c ... if we had any.”
Health care is no different. If it’s “free” there won’t be any, at least not for anyone who was suckered into voting for it. Same old same old. Worse, everything involved in a socialist society requires coercion and punishment and tyranny and eventually, piles of skulls to enforce a system that won’t function and can’t be made to function no matter how many “reactionaries” and kulaks are liquidated. Pretty damn sad, and in this country it is often the multimillionaires who insist that socialism is the way to go.
The UK coined the term “bed blockers”.
And one bureaucrat over there suggested that the elderly have a duty to die.
Let’s hear it for the NHS.
I agree MOSTLY with you—and am totally against the clinitonite Ezekiel Emanuel and his “bioethicist” ilk!!!
But provided we have vaccines (hopefully not of the mRNA type) proven to be safe and effective in Phase 3 clinical trials, published in leading medical journals (accessible to the public), and approved by the FDA and European agencies, EVERYONE should be vaccinated!!!
We already have mandatory vaccination programs—for measles, mumps, etc.etc. The goal would be to END social distancing, masking, lockdowns, etc. ASAP and forever!!!!
Mandatory vaccination sounds fascist to some. But mandatory.long-term social distancing is REALLY fascist, and is deadly for public mental health, cancer, heart disease, etc. etc.
“They should choose, but those at highest risk should be first.”
_______________________________
Though I could be wrong, I believe there is a drive to eliminate the elderly.
1. They’re costing more money in their aged years than they are providing to the government in taxes.
2. Many of them, despite news to the contrary, do have money that Nursing Homes will gain as well as property that is often signed over to the Nursing Homes prior to entry.
3. Those that have monies that make it to the younger generation will quickly go to the government during the spending spree of the younger generations. Even if the amounts are less than the Death Taxes amount, the younger generation will be paying taxes on purchased items/services/land.
So.... eliminating the older generation is actually quite a Win-Win for a lot of self-centered feces....
>multimillionaires who insist that socialism is the way to go
They think they will be running it if they get in front of it.
“I would recommend that the elderly, front-line workers, and those with compromised immunity get the first opportunity to be vaccinated. They should choose, but those at highest risk should be first.”
—
Yup.
The left wants the elderly dead. More money in the medical system to give free abortion, sex “change” operations, euthanasia and aids care.
Yup x 2.
The most vulnerable along with those most likely to be exposed and transmit it like front line health care workers should get it first. Young healthy people are at almost no risk from Covid, we might find that they don't even need it after the high risk groups are vaccinated.
This is how socialism works.
And in NY and PA, highly infectious patients were deliberately and maliciously forced onto nursing home.
This is how democrats work.
“we might find that they don’t even need it after the high risk groups are vaccinated.”
—
Could be. Also, to have some that can be infected but have little risk of anything serious might help bring herd immunity into the mix a bit more. Something I’d have to ask a epidemiologist about.
“I believe there is a drive to eliminate the elderly.”
—
That is a counter-argument to my internal debate that it might have been a developed bio-agent weapon.
When you design a weapon, you don’t develop one that will help an enemy and you’d target taking out the young & healthy (fighting age), not those who’re old or on their last legs.
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.