• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Coronavirus (COVID-19) is too exciting for adults to discuss (CLOSED)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
MililaniBuckeye said:
The tie-breaker "determines" squat. It already mandates that young get treated first, old last. It doesn't take into account the that 67-year-old is a professor at a world-renowned university and the 38-year-old is a registered sex offender.


Gee, how about his/her medical expertise and first-hand knowledge of the specific situation?
Click to expand...
And leave the dr open for a lawsuit because Karen is upset that her 38 year old registered sex offender son was allowed to die because the dr was buddy buddy with the 67 year old professor. Gotta have the rules written down or somebody is going to bitch and be able to sue.....right or wrong.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
Gee, how about his/her medical expertise and first-hand knowledge of the specific situation?
Click to expand...

Why would you cut the rest of the paragraph where I said exactly that?
That's always going to be the first factor that is going to be considered. This is NOT superseding the doctor's medical expertise on who needs it more, it is supplementing that knowledge should the doctor find him or herself in a position where there are two equally needful patients.
 
Upvote 0
Fungo Squiggly said:
Why would you cut the rest of the paragraph where I said exactly that?
That's always going to be the first factor that is going to be considered. This is NOT superseding the doctor's medical expertise on who needs it more, it is supplementing that knowledge should the doctor find him or herself in a position where there are two equally needful patients.
Click to expand...
Because that's not what the actual guidelines are:

The guidelines state: “The ethical justification for incorporating the life-cycle principle is that it is a valuable goal to give individuals equal opportunity to pass through the stages of life — childhood, young adulthood, middle age, and old age. The justification for this principle does not rely on considerations of one’s intrinsic worth or social utility. Rather, younger individuals receive priority because they have had the least opportunity to live through life’s stages.”

The document adds, “We suggest that life-cycle considerations should be used as a tiebreaker if there are not enough resources to provide to all patients within a priority group, with priority going to younger patients. We recommend the following categories: age 12-40, age 41-60; age 61-75; older than age 75. The ethical justification for incorporating the life-cycle principle is that it is a valuable goal to give individuals equal opportunity to pass through the stages of life— childhood, young adulthood, middle age, and old age.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeNation27 said:
And leave the dr open for a lawsuit because Karen is upset that her 38 year old registered sex offender son was allowed to die because the dr was buddy buddy with the 67 year old professor. Gotta have the rules written down or somebody is going to bitch and be able to sue.....right or wrong.
Click to expand...
First, you're assuming that the doctor knew the professor. Second, tough shit for the mom...if her son wasn't a fucking rapist or kiddie-diddler he'd get priority.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
First, you're assuming that the doctor knew the professor. Second, tough shit for the mom...if her son wasn't a fucking rapist or kiddie-diddler he'd get priority.
Click to expand...
:lol: And you're not assuming the older guy is a professor and the younger guy's a pedo? I was going off your made up scenario. And a judge isn't going to say "tough shit" to a law suit. If your official gameplan for treating victims of a disease is the gut feeling because he's a doctor.....that's not going to hold up when somebody wants to sue.
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeNation27 said:
:lol: And you're not assuming the older guy is a professor and the younger guy's a pedo? I was going off your made up scenario. And a judge isn't going to say "tough shit" to a law suit. If your official gameplan for treating victims of a disease is the gut feeling because he's a doctor.....that's not going to hold up when somebody wants to sue.
Click to expand...
You cannot be this fucking dense. If a doctor has patient under his charge and is tasked to decide whether or not one is to be denied life-saving treatment, the hospital is very likely to know just who those two patients are.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
You cannot be this fucking dense. If a doctor has patient under his charge and is tasked to decide whether or not one is to be denied life-saving treatment, the hospital is very likely to know just who those two patients are.
Click to expand...
You're right. Nobody would ever sue in that scenario because people are just accepting of "Trust us, we did it the right way". My bad.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top