Who should MDs let die in a pandemic? Report offers answers

Well, here it is.

The first step of the government rationing health care (for when they take it over) has been announced.

Watch for more "just in case" rules about medicine coming soon.

They don't mention old politicians, do they?

Joey wrote:

Well, here it is.
The first step of the government rationing health care (for when they take it over) has been announced.
Watch for more "just in case" rules about medicine coming soon.
They don't mention old politicians, do they?

Or the rich bastards, a lot of they are old as well. The poor will be ignored as usual.

The only ethical question to ask is the victim of a disaster can be saved with the limited resources that will be available. This is the standard the our military uses. Civilians will have to comply or everyone will lose.

Darkwater wrote:

The only ethical question to ask is the victim of a disaster can be saved with the limited resources that will be available. This is the standard the our military uses. Civilians will have to comply or everyone will lose.

So you agree that the Rich, the politicians, the famous, and others that can afford treatment are more valuable, then the old or poor or infirmed?
Wow. nice attitude.

Gotta Love It wrote:

<quoted text>
So you agree that the Rich, the politicians, the famous, and others that can afford treatment are more valuable, then the old or poor or infirmed?
Wow. nice attitude.

I suggest that you read what I wrote again. Then go to the links in the article. It will give you more information.

If I was in a situation were I can save 5 people vs 1 person. Guess what, the 5 people win out. It is regardless of whether your rich, or poor. It is a matter of how many can be saved given the resources available, and how best to use those resources.

In a disaster, or pandemic, being rich is not going to help you. Survivability of an individual will be the deciding factor. It will mean those with COPD, Cancer, the elderly etc will be treated last. It is not an easy decision to make on who lives and who dies, but the greater good of the whole is what counts during these situations.

What can you do to make your chances that you are a survivor, rather than a victim, is to be prepared. The Feds have been telling everyone since 9/11 on how to do this. Have you not paid any attention? If not, don't be complaining later.

If the plague sends death to my doorstep I'll maybe let some knight distract Death with a game of chess while my wife and I make out escape.

Jugglers are survivors.

Is this article telling you anything you didn't already know? Of course, putting it out there makes it sound harsh; but this is the real world.

I hate to say it but.... PhD vs. toothless inbred?

Darkwater wrote:

<quoted text>
I suggest that you read what I wrote again. Then go to the links in the article. It will give you more information.
If I was in a situation were I can save 5 people vs 1 person. Guess what, the 5 people win out. It is regardless of whether your rich, or poor. It is a matter of how many can be saved given the resources available, and how best to use those resources.
In a disaster, or pandemic, being rich is not going to help you. Survivability of an individual will be the deciding factor. It will mean those with COPD, Cancer, the elderly etc will be treated last. It is not an easy decision to make on who lives and who dies, but the greater good of the whole is what counts during these situations.
What can you do to make your chances that you are a survivor, rather than a victim, is to be prepared. The Feds have been telling everyone since 9/11 on how to do this. Have you not paid any attention? If not, don't be complaining later.

YOu raise some valid point, but i disagree with the premis that if you are Rick r politially poserful you will not be in the first of the line. In any circustance of a pandemic. ESPECIALLY if there is a vaccine of some type that is in limited supply.
To believe otherwise show a very poor understanding of how this country has become.

Sorry should have been "Rich or politically powerful"

Gotta Love It wrote:

Sorry should have been "Rich or politically powerful"

Yes, we have too many poserful politicians. I advise locking them in a room with lawyers and other people of advanced disease for whom there is no hope.

Jof and Mia wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, we have too many poserful politicians. I advise locking them in a room with lawyers and other people of advanced disease for whom there is no hope.

I wholeheartedly agree with this, unfortunately it will not happen that way, It will be the poor and the old that die.

How will the doctors know which ones are lawyers?

Gotta Love It wrote:

<quoted text>
YOu raise some valid point, but i disagree with the premis that if you are Rick r politially poserful ....

Those that are rich do not, repeat, do not get to go ahead of the line. Sorry to have to disappoint you on that one. The only politicians that will be permitted ahead of the line are just the Mayors, County Presidents, and Governor (if a pandedemic goes state wide.) Political connects will not get you to the front of the line. Money will not get you to the front either.

How do I know this, because I am a Volunteer Site Manager with a Medical Reserve Corps Unit. There are detailed, and specific instructions on how, when, where, who we give out medications. In none of them is there any instruction that money or politics gets you to the front except for those specific positions mentioned. If an alderman comes up and demands he gets his meds first, he is escorted by a police officer to the back of the line. Refusal to comply has dire consequences.

It is apparent that you failed to go to the links in the article.

Darkwater wrote:

<quoted text>
Those that are rich do not, repeat, do not get to go ahead of the line. Sorry to have to disappoint you on that one. The only politicians that will be permitted ahead of the line are just the Mayors, County Presidents, and Governor (if a pandedemic goes state wide.) Political connects will not get you to the front of the line. Money will not get you to the front either.
How do I know this, because I am a Volunteer Site Manager with a Medical Reserve Corps Unit. There are detailed, and specific instructions on how, when, where, who we give out medications. In none of them is there any instruction that money or politics gets you to the front except for those specific positions mentioned. If an alderman comes up and demands he gets his meds first, he is escorted by a police officer to the back of the line. Refusal to comply has dire consequences.
It is apparent that you failed to go to the links in the article.

OK whatever, you stand by that, I stand by my premise.

Al Gored wrote:

How will the doctors know which ones are lawyers?

The doctors will just say "oops" and the lawyers will come running.

It’s called “triage,” and it means to sort patients based on the severity of their condition.

It’s done every day in mass casualty situations when medics choose which patients are most severely injured and should be treated first and transported to hospitals first.

By choosing to treat the most severely injured, they are making a decision to delay care to those who are less severely injured, right?

This is done when there are auto accidents with five or six people injured. They may fly the two most severely injured and the others are transported by ambulance.

Other times when there are accidents the most severely injured are taken to the hospital in the first ambulances to arrive on scene and the others must wait for additional units to arrive.

In cases like this, care is only delayed for a short time.

The kind of mass casualty events the people who produced this report were considering are different. They were considering something like pandemic flu where 30%(or higher) of our population could be infected. That would be approximately 100 million people.

We don’t have the resources to treat 100 million people. We don’t have enough hospital beds, ventilators, antiviral medicines, other medications, iv supplies, oral rehydration fluids, syringes, etc.

In a situation where there are massive numbers of injured or ill and a limited amount of medical resources those resources must be given to those most likely to survive. It is ethical to treat those most likely to survive.

The reason they are considering this now is so that there are guidelines and these decisions are made ethically and not based on influence, politics, race, and economic level of patients.

They are not talking about refusing care to grandma during a seasonal flu when there are resources available but during a pandemic when Pennsylvania might have 3.6 million patients.

What about the young strong druggies?? Or welfare recipients??? Or illegal aliens?? Where do they draw the line??
Or is it only the sick and elderly who will be the "chosen" to be neglected.
Just wondering, how they will determine those who are worthy to be saved.

Barky von Schnauzer wrote:

What about the young strong druggies?? Or welfare recipients??? Or illegal aliens?? Where do they draw the line??
Or is it only the sick and elderly who will be the "chosen" to be neglected.
Just wondering, how they will determine those who are worthy to be saved.

The only line that is drawn is that if a patient is already showing signs of the disease they are not permitted into a treatment center, they are referred to their doctor or the nearest hospital. Other than that no id's are check, no background checks, no asking if you are a citzen of the US. In this situation the goal is to limit the spread of disease. This is done through medication, and isolation of the population. To answer you question about the elderly, those too sick etc., they will not get medication or medical care if the situation is worse case scenaro.

Barky von Schnauzer wrote:

What about the young strong druggies?? Or welfare recipients??? Or illegal aliens?? Where do they draw the line??
Or is it only the sick and elderly who will be the "chosen" to be neglected.
Just wondering, how they will determine those who are worthy to be saved.

It is not based on some contrived "social worth" criteria. It is based on what effort is needed to help the person, what is available, and who would be likely to survive if treated. The overall goal is to save the most people with limited resources. Kind of like prioritizing an organ donation recipient list.

They would also have to consider what deciding factors would be readily available to the medical staff. Even in a pandemic doctors likely would not have access to list of welfare recipients, know a persons immigration status, or criminal record.