When it comes to the issue of morality and medical traige, I think it is impossible to fully separate the two. Whether a doctor, or a hospital policy makes a call there are always going to be reprocussions people will see on a moral level.
Lets take lung transplants lists. If the list is just first come first serve then you inevitably have people upset because you might have a child with a birth defect being put after a 60 year old chain smoker. But if you decide to go with age and life potential remaining then the smoker gets upset because his is being morally judged. Either option introduces a morality aspect, or at least a perception of a morality aspect to it. Heck, lets take it to the most extreme example. Say a suicide bomber survived the explosion and was taken to the hospital with all the other critical victims. Can you imagine the outrage if a doctor worked on the terrorist before one of the victims or if one of the victims died because the doctor worked on the terrorist first?
I did hear that in some states doctors get priority in treatment because the reasoning is that when the doctor gets better he can help save more people, but even then someone could get upset asking why a doctor's life is worth more.
Wasn't comparing terrorists to the unvaccinated. I just used it as a thought provoking dilemma to make people think if there is ever a situation where they would want a doctor to exercise a moral judgement in their triage.
[snip]
The discussion was about whether the unvaxxed could be morally "triaged" behind those with the vaccine.
Then you created analogies between the unvaxxed and (1) a 60 yr old chain smoking lung transplant patient and (2) a terrorist suicide bomber. You asked how they could be morally triaged behind other patients because of something they did.
I get that you were trying to illustrate your point with examples, but when the point involves the unvaxxed as the one being given the lowest priority vs. vaxxed, and the smoker and terrorist are in that same priority level, how are you NOT equating all of them? It might be in the context of triage, but what, exactly, did the unvaxxed do to warrant the lower priority?
The Delta variant isn't stopped by the vaccine, and most of the infections lately are Delta. So, if the vaccine is not stopping infections, why are the unvaxxed being blamed for it?
The smoker was a chain smoker -- it's a provable fact.
The bomber killed and injured innocent people -- it's a provable fact.
What did the unvaxxed person intentionally do to hurt anyone? Where is the similarity to the other two?
I submit that the only thing that makes them APPEAR similar are the unfounded prejudicial attitudes, beliefs and animosity of the person doing triage of the unvaxxed.