|
6
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by In a civilian mass casualty event, whether from terrorism, environmental disaster, accident or pandemic, how is the appropriation of limited life saving resources assigned? For smaller mass casualty events, life savers on the ground will evaluate the scene and triage the patients for priority of care. However, for the most part, care is found for everyone. But, in the case of truly widespread demand for medical resources, a set of guidelines have been put together using input from the military, DHS, CDC and DHHS. The guidance essentially decrees that the elderly, mentally handicapped and terminally/chronically diseased will not get any care until the resources are freed up again.
Add a Comment (4)
Email This
Message Author
An event like this couldn't possibly happen for another 20-25 years. I know this for fact because that is how long it will be before I fit the description "elderly".
RSS
dangerous if overgeneralized. by NomadSoul :: NR5 :: 5 days ago
In a huge emergency, it's understandable (horrific, but understandable) that care is prioritized in this way. I'm not sure it's the best response, but it may be the only effective short-term response to this kind of emergency.
The thing about this that bothers me is that there's a pervasive need by some to generalize this kind of thinking to everyday life. If you're not healthy or wealthy enough, or the right age or colour, you may be denied access to health care or education or social services... Or, to put it another way, a major emergency is the only time that social Darwinism or even mainstream Economics makes any kind of sense.
Or, to put it yet another way, the pace of North American life makes us all behave as if we're living in a low-level emergency all the time, justifying all manner of stupidity simply because "it must get done"--and right now.
RE: dangerous if overgeneralized. by LordDilly :: NR8 :: 4 days ago
The thing about this that bothers me is that there's a pervasive need by some to generalize this kind of thinking to everyday life.
Utilitarian Bio-ethics, as preached by the monstrous (yet highly regarded in academia, which is chilling) Peter Singer.
RE: dangerous if overgeneralized. by NomadSoul :: NR5 :: 4 days ago
Yeah--utilitiarianism and consequentialism are occasionally necessary, but should never be a solitary mode of thinking--that is, unless we want to return to feudalism.