|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Germany6926 Posts
are you seriously arguing against saving the life of a 15 year old cause he was put under house arrest?
|
On April 21 2015 07:57 Paljas wrote:
are you seriously arguing against saving the life of a 15 year old cause he was put under house arrest?
How many fights do you have to get in to get placed under house arrest? It's certainly more than one.
15 is old enough to know right from wrong as well, so don't give me the "He's just a child." nonsense.
The whole point of bringing it up at all though was that you don't want to waste resources on someone who will throw them away. Would you be OK with letting him die if he'd been 18, or 21? Remember he'd have armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon on his record at that point, the robbery happened when he was 17.
Clearly there is a point where resources would be better spent on someone more worthy of help.
|
On April 21 2015 07:57 Paljas wrote:
are you seriously arguing against saving the life of a 15 year old cause he was put under house arrest?
I wouldn't be surprised if the risk assessment of an actuary showed low life expectancy with heart transplant due to past behaviors.
|
On April 21 2015 07:42 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 07:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:32 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:29 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:25 Acrofales wrote:
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-stokes-teen-who-got-heart-transplant-dies-car-chase-n334001So giving this kid was morally good to you? Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is a morally good idea, yes. 15 years old is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. So we're going to make doctors judge jury and executioner for people? That is fucking retarded. Sorry kid, we don't feel you've made the right decisions, we're not giving you cancer treatment. You'll get no chance to straighten your life out, no compassion will be shown. You're a fucking dead man now. You've got to be the most vindictive person I've ever seen. Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is objectively the moral position. They already make those judgements though. The transplant waiting list takes into account your history. And not just your medical history either. Like I already said, 15 is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult.
For starters I don't believe in trying a kid as an adult period.
You're advocating killing a 15 year old, all 15 year olds make stupid decisions. You're advocating killing people who get HIV from drug use. Your position is not morally defensible at all.
Why not just take them behind the hospital and put them down?
The only person in the world that deserves a new lease on life more than a 15 year old is someone 1-14.
|
What if the heart transplant was between a 15 year-old with high risk history vs a 20 year-old with low risk history? Merely only taking into account basic actuary risk assessment, which is the better pick? 15 year old just by virtue of being younger, despite the fact that the 20 year old is far more likely to use the heart for longer?
this is a large moral grey areas. Also refusing to treat a patient is different than killing one.
|
On April 21 2015 08:09 wei2coolman wrote:
What if the heart transplant was between a 15 year-old with high risk history vs a 20 year-old with low risk history? Merely only taking into account basic actuary risk assessment, which is the better pick? 15 year old just by virtue of being younger, despite the fact that the 20 year old is far more likely to use the heart for longer?
this is a lot of moral grey areas, also refusing to treat a patient is different than killing one.
It is no different, ESPECIALLY when you're talking about giving out HIV drugs. You are killing that person.
The 15 year old.
|
On April 21 2015 08:05 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 07:42 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:32 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:29 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:25 Acrofales wrote:
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-stokes-teen-who-got-heart-transplant-dies-car-chase-n334001So giving this kid was morally good to you? Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is a morally good idea, yes. 15 years old is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. So we're going to make doctors judge jury and executioner for people? That is fucking retarded. Sorry kid, we don't feel you've made the right decisions, we're not giving you cancer treatment. You'll get no chance to straighten your life out, no compassion will be shown. You're a fucking dead man now. You've got to be the most vindictive person I've ever seen. Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is objectively the moral position. They already make those judgements though. The transplant waiting list takes into account your history. And not just your medical history either. Like I already said, 15 is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. For starters I don't believe in trying a kid as an adult period. You're advocating killing a 15 year old, all 15 year olds make stupid decisions. You're advocating killing people who get HIV from drug use. Your position is not morally defensible at all. Why not just take them behind the hospital and put them down? The only person in the world that deserves a new lease on life more than a 15 year old is someone 1-14.
So at what point does someone become old enough to be tried as an adult to you? You realize someone who has just had their 18th birthday isn't magically more mature than he was a day earlier.
How old is old enough to know right from wrong?
|
On April 21 2015 08:09 wei2coolman wrote:
What if the heart transplant was between a 15 year-old with high risk history vs a 20 year-old with low risk history? Merely only taking into account basic actuary risk assessment, which is the better pick? 15 year old just by virtue of being younger, despite the fact that the 20 year old is far more likely to use the heart for longer?
this is a large moral grey areas. Also refusing to treat a patient is different than killing one.
Whoo, we're talking death panels now. Cool.
On April 21 2015 08:13 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 08:05 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:42 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:32 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:29 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:25 Acrofales wrote:
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-stokes-teen-who-got-heart-transplant-dies-car-chase-n334001So giving this kid was morally good to you? Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is a morally good idea, yes. 15 years old is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. So we're going to make doctors judge jury and executioner for people? That is fucking retarded. Sorry kid, we don't feel you've made the right decisions, we're not giving you cancer treatment. You'll get no chance to straighten your life out, no compassion will be shown. You're a fucking dead man now. You've got to be the most vindictive person I've ever seen. Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is objectively the moral position. They already make those judgements though. The transplant waiting list takes into account your history. And not just your medical history either. Like I already said, 15 is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. For starters I don't believe in trying a kid as an adult period. You're advocating killing a 15 year old, all 15 year olds make stupid decisions. You're advocating killing people who get HIV from drug use. Your position is not morally defensible at all. Why not just take them behind the hospital and put them down? The only person in the world that deserves a new lease on life more than a 15 year old is someone 1-14. So at what point does someone become old enough to be tried as an adult to you? You realize someone who has just had their 18th birthday isn't magically more mature than he was a day earlier. How old is old enough to know right from wrong?
How about the age where you actually have responsibilities and control over the basics of your life.
|
On April 21 2015 08:13 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 08:05 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:42 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:32 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:29 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:25 Acrofales wrote:
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-stokes-teen-who-got-heart-transplant-dies-car-chase-n334001So giving this kid was morally good to you? Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is a morally good idea, yes. 15 years old is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. So we're going to make doctors judge jury and executioner for people? That is fucking retarded. Sorry kid, we don't feel you've made the right decisions, we're not giving you cancer treatment. You'll get no chance to straighten your life out, no compassion will be shown. You're a fucking dead man now. You've got to be the most vindictive person I've ever seen. Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is objectively the moral position. They already make those judgements though. The transplant waiting list takes into account your history. And not just your medical history either. Like I already said, 15 is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. For starters I don't believe in trying a kid as an adult period. You're advocating killing a 15 year old, all 15 year olds make stupid decisions. You're advocating killing people who get HIV from drug use. Your position is not morally defensible at all. Why not just take them behind the hospital and put them down? The only person in the world that deserves a new lease on life more than a 15 year old is someone 1-14. So at what point does someone become old enough to be tried as an adult to you? You realize someone who has just had their 18th birthday isn't magically more mature than he was a day earlier. How old is old enough to know right from wrong?
A 7 year old knows right from wrong. Lets try 7 year olds as adults. The argument works both ways.
We've decided 18 years old is adulthood. That number is the magical number unless you want to buy booze. So thats the number.
|
On April 21 2015 08:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 08:09 wei2coolman wrote:
What if the heart transplant was between a 15 year-old with high risk history vs a 20 year-old with low risk history? Merely only taking into account basic actuary risk assessment, which is the better pick? 15 year old just by virtue of being younger, despite the fact that the 20 year old is far more likely to use the heart for longer?
this is a lot of moral grey areas, also refusing to treat a patient is different than killing one. It is no different, ESPECIALLY when you're talking about giving out HIV drugs. You are killing that person. The 15 year old.
There are not infinite HIV drugs. You can't give them to everyone.
|
On April 21 2015 08:14 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 08:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 08:09 wei2coolman wrote:
What if the heart transplant was between a 15 year-old with high risk history vs a 20 year-old with low risk history? Merely only taking into account basic actuary risk assessment, which is the better pick? 15 year old just by virtue of being younger, despite the fact that the 20 year old is far more likely to use the heart for longer?
this is a lot of moral grey areas, also refusing to treat a patient is different than killing one. It is no different, ESPECIALLY when you're talking about giving out HIV drugs. You are killing that person. The 15 year old. There are not infinite HIV drugs. You can't give them to everyone.
There are not infinite anything. We can make more HIV drugs, we can't make organs YET but its not that far off.
|
On April 21 2015 08:14 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 08:13 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 08:05 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:42 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:32 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:29 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:25 Acrofales wrote:
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-stokes-teen-who-got-heart-transplant-dies-car-chase-n334001So giving this kid was morally good to you? Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is a morally good idea, yes. 15 years old is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. So we're going to make doctors judge jury and executioner for people? That is fucking retarded. Sorry kid, we don't feel you've made the right decisions, we're not giving you cancer treatment. You'll get no chance to straighten your life out, no compassion will be shown. You're a fucking dead man now. You've got to be the most vindictive person I've ever seen. Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is objectively the moral position. They already make those judgements though. The transplant waiting list takes into account your history. And not just your medical history either. Like I already said, 15 is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. For starters I don't believe in trying a kid as an adult period. You're advocating killing a 15 year old, all 15 year olds make stupid decisions. You're advocating killing people who get HIV from drug use. Your position is not morally defensible at all. Why not just take them behind the hospital and put them down? The only person in the world that deserves a new lease on life more than a 15 year old is someone 1-14. So at what point does someone become old enough to be tried as an adult to you? You realize someone who has just had their 18th birthday isn't magically more mature than he was a day earlier. How old is old enough to know right from wrong? A 7 year old knows right from wrong. Lets try 7 year olds as adults. The argument works both ways. We've decided 18 years old is adulthood. That number is the magical number unless you want to buy booze. So thats the number.
That's a straw man and you know it. 15 year-olds are adults in plenty of cultures, 7 year-olds are not.
On April 21 2015 08:17 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 08:14 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 08:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 08:09 wei2coolman wrote:
What if the heart transplant was between a 15 year-old with high risk history vs a 20 year-old with low risk history? Merely only taking into account basic actuary risk assessment, which is the better pick? 15 year old just by virtue of being younger, despite the fact that the 20 year old is far more likely to use the heart for longer?
this is a lot of moral grey areas, also refusing to treat a patient is different than killing one. It is no different, ESPECIALLY when you're talking about giving out HIV drugs. You are killing that person. The 15 year old. There are not infinite HIV drugs. You can't give them to everyone. There are not infinite anything. We can make more HIV drugs, we can't make organs YET but its not that far off.
So you're arguing against rationing in general? That thing every healthcare system on Earth does?
|
Germany6926 Posts
On April 21 2015 08:03 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 07:57 Paljas wrote:
are you seriously arguing against saving the life of a 15 year old cause he was put under house arrest? How many fights do you have to get in to get placed under house arrest? It's certainly more than one. 15 is old enough to know right from wrong as well, so don't give me the "He's just a child." nonsense. The whole point of bringing it up at all though was that you don't want to waste resources on someone who will throw them away. Would you be OK with letting him die if he'd been 18, or 21? Remember he'd have armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon on his record at that point, the robbery happened when he was 17. Clearly there is a point where resources would be better spent on someone more worthy of help.
Would you be OK with letting him die if he'd been 18, or 21?
No, of course not.
someone more worthy of help.
he IS worthy of help, simply due to the fact that he is human. "worthy of help" shouldnt be use as a comparative term.
Your whole moral concept is based on a disgusting idea of human worth based on accomplishment and achievments.
Meritocracy in the terminal stage, i guess.
btw, your comments regarding the age are particular stupid. a 15 year old is not an aduld and shouldnt be treated as such.
in fact, a 15 year old is hardly responsible for what he is at all (even tho he is responsible for his actions).
Dont act as if you never did stupid shit when you were 15
|
On April 21 2015 08:18 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 08:14 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 08:13 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 08:05 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:42 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:32 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:29 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:25 Acrofales wrote:
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-stokes-teen-who-got-heart-transplant-dies-car-chase-n334001So giving this kid was morally good to you? Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is a morally good idea, yes. 15 years old is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. So we're going to make doctors judge jury and executioner for people? That is fucking retarded. Sorry kid, we don't feel you've made the right decisions, we're not giving you cancer treatment. You'll get no chance to straighten your life out, no compassion will be shown. You're a fucking dead man now. You've got to be the most vindictive person I've ever seen. Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is objectively the moral position. They already make those judgements though. The transplant waiting list takes into account your history. And not just your medical history either. Like I already said, 15 is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. For starters I don't believe in trying a kid as an adult period. You're advocating killing a 15 year old, all 15 year olds make stupid decisions. You're advocating killing people who get HIV from drug use. Your position is not morally defensible at all. Why not just take them behind the hospital and put them down? The only person in the world that deserves a new lease on life more than a 15 year old is someone 1-14. So at what point does someone become old enough to be tried as an adult to you? You realize someone who has just had their 18th birthday isn't magically more mature than he was a day earlier. How old is old enough to know right from wrong? A 7 year old knows right from wrong. Lets try 7 year olds as adults. The argument works both ways. We've decided 18 years old is adulthood. That number is the magical number unless you want to buy booze. So thats the number. That's a straw man and you know it. 15 year-olds are adults in plenty of cultures, 7 year-olds are not.
Yes, and those 15 year-olds in other countries are afforded all the rights and privileges of being a legal adult.
15 year olds in the United States are not, so it's not remotely comparable.
|
On April 21 2015 08:18 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 08:14 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 08:13 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 08:05 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:42 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:32 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:29 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:25 Acrofales wrote:
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-stokes-teen-who-got-heart-transplant-dies-car-chase-n334001So giving this kid was morally good to you? Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is a morally good idea, yes. 15 years old is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. So we're going to make doctors judge jury and executioner for people? That is fucking retarded. Sorry kid, we don't feel you've made the right decisions, we're not giving you cancer treatment. You'll get no chance to straighten your life out, no compassion will be shown. You're a fucking dead man now. You've got to be the most vindictive person I've ever seen. Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is objectively the moral position. They already make those judgements though. The transplant waiting list takes into account your history. And not just your medical history either. Like I already said, 15 is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. For starters I don't believe in trying a kid as an adult period. You're advocating killing a 15 year old, all 15 year olds make stupid decisions. You're advocating killing people who get HIV from drug use. Your position is not morally defensible at all. Why not just take them behind the hospital and put them down? The only person in the world that deserves a new lease on life more than a 15 year old is someone 1-14. So at what point does someone become old enough to be tried as an adult to you? You realize someone who has just had their 18th birthday isn't magically more mature than he was a day earlier. How old is old enough to know right from wrong? A 7 year old knows right from wrong. Lets try 7 year olds as adults. The argument works both ways. We've decided 18 years old is adulthood. That number is the magical number unless you want to buy booze. So thats the number. That's a straw man and you know it. 15 year-olds are adults in plenty of cultures, 7 year-olds are not.
Your argument is a straw man as well! ROFL
Our culture has decided 18 is adulthood. Don't like it? Change it.
|
On April 21 2015 08:14 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 08:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 08:09 wei2coolman wrote:
What if the heart transplant was between a 15 year-old with high risk history vs a 20 year-old with low risk history? Merely only taking into account basic actuary risk assessment, which is the better pick? 15 year old just by virtue of being younger, despite the fact that the 20 year old is far more likely to use the heart for longer?
this is a lot of moral grey areas, also refusing to treat a patient is different than killing one. It is no different, ESPECIALLY when you're talking about giving out HIV drugs. You are killing that person. The 15 year old. There are not infinite HIV drugs. You can't give them to everyone.
That's just a matter of priorities. There is certainly enough resources to provide any/every American who needed them with HIV drugs, it's just a matter of whether it's more helpful/important than something else.
A fun set of circumstances might be when someone gets raped in prison and contracts HIV that way, would you treat them or would it be 'their own fault" for being in prison in the first place? Ignoring for now that there are many innocent/wrongly convicted people in prison.
|
On April 21 2015 08:19 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 08:03 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:57 Paljas wrote:
are you seriously arguing against saving the life of a 15 year old cause he was put under house arrest? How many fights do you have to get in to get placed under house arrest? It's certainly more than one. 15 is old enough to know right from wrong as well, so don't give me the "He's just a child." nonsense. The whole point of bringing it up at all though was that you don't want to waste resources on someone who will throw them away. Would you be OK with letting him die if he'd been 18, or 21? Remember he'd have armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon on his record at that point, the robbery happened when he was 17. Clearly there is a point where resources would be better spent on someone more worthy of help. No, of course not. he IS worthy of help, simply due to the fact that he is human. "worthy of help" shouldnt be use as a comparative term. Your whole moral concept is based on a disgusting idea of human worth based on accomplishment and achievments. Meritocracy in the terminal stage, i guess. btw, your comments regarding the age are particular stupid. a 15 year old is not an aduld and shouldnt be treated as such. in fact, a 15 year old is hardly responsible for what he is at all (even tho he is responsible for his actions).Dont act as if you never did stupid shit when you were 15
The person without a criminal record who could've gotten that heart instead of him is also human and worthy of help. But there aren't enough hearts to go around, and you gotta pick at some point.
I didn't get in fights or end up in house arrest. And I didn't rob old ladies at gunpoint when I was 17.
As for the bolded part, it can't be both. Either he is or is not responsible.
|
On April 21 2015 08:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 08:09 wei2coolman wrote:
What if the heart transplant was between a 15 year-old with high risk history vs a 20 year-old with low risk history? Merely only taking into account basic actuary risk assessment, which is the better pick? 15 year old just by virtue of being younger, despite the fact that the 20 year old is far more likely to use the heart for longer?
this is a large moral grey areas. Also refusing to treat a patient is different than killing one. Whoo, we're talking death panels now. Cool.
All non-free market allocations of medical resources are, in effect, "death panels". Even the free market could be considered a "death panel" (although its more like a death enigma in that case).
|
On April 21 2015 08:14 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 08:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 08:09 wei2coolman wrote:
What if the heart transplant was between a 15 year-old with high risk history vs a 20 year-old with low risk history? Merely only taking into account basic actuary risk assessment, which is the better pick? 15 year old just by virtue of being younger, despite the fact that the 20 year old is far more likely to use the heart for longer?
this is a lot of moral grey areas, also refusing to treat a patient is different than killing one. It is no different, ESPECIALLY when you're talking about giving out HIV drugs. You are killing that person. The 15 year old. There are not infinite HIV drugs. You can't give them to everyone.
and that's why clean needles are a good idea.
you're literally making everyone's argument for clean needles for them.
antivirals = expensive
clean needles = cheap
i mean... it's not rocket surgery.
|
We already ration organs but in other ways. For example, if someone needs a new liver because they drank too much or were IV drug abusers, they need to wait much longer than someone who needs a new liver due to hemochromatosis for example. This is only logical, people who killed their own livers through alcoholism are more likely to kill their livers again through continued alcoholism whereas those who get liver failure through congenital or infectious disease modes are more likely to keep their new liver going longer. Until organs can be produced like drugs there can and should be continued rationing.
However, rationing organs for past criminal behavior is another story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
