The Jab (Read 88232 times)

aletheuo137

Re: The Jab
« Reply #620 on: September 23, 2021, 05:32:58 PM »
#anotherthreadderailed
#butthisderailismorefunner
Bazinga!

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

eyeeatingfish

Re: The Jab
« Reply #621 on: September 23, 2021, 08:16:12 PM »
The whole point of triage is to take the moral element out of it so that medical personnel do not become emotionally overwhelmed by the gravity of their own personal decisions.

You're trying to politicize an algorithm in order to justify the mass murder of anyone who dares to stand up against reckless Big Pharma profiteering.

Shame on you.

I can't talk about the morality of triage strategies without being accused of politicization?

How about you answer the question I raised of a doctor treating a terrorist who injured dozens before treating the people he injured?

Flapp_Jackson

Re: The Jab
« Reply #622 on: September 23, 2021, 08:58:52 PM »
I can't talk about the morality of triage strategies without being accused of politicization?

How about you answer the question I raised of a doctor treating a terrorist who injured dozens before treating the people he injured?

Doctors take an oath.  To allow the terrorist to wait behind less serious patients would be violating the ethics of his position.  Anyone who disagreed with his decision could seek punishment through the medical ethics review board.

Ethics are different than morals.  They are standards professional promise to uphold.  Not a political viewpoint, but one that involves trust in certain professions.  How can you trust your doctor if they violate the rules you expect everyone, including yourself, to be treated under?
"How can you diagnose someone with an obsessive-compulsive disorder
and then act as though I had some choice about barging in?"
-- Melvin Udall

changemyoil66

Re: The Jab
« Reply #623 on: September 23, 2021, 09:13:01 PM »
I can't talk about the morality of triage strategies without being accused of politicization?

How about you answer the question I raised of a doctor treating a terrorist who injured dozens before treating the people he injured?
When EMTs pull in, do they state why the person is injured? Like "he was caught raping a girl and a bystander smashed his head with a rock". Or do they state how the injury occurred. As in "his head was smashed in with a rock".

But like u asked, what if the emt or someone else was wrong? So in a bombing, there would be multiple people brought in. And if there are no resources, then triage occurs via injury type. Someone bleeding out and pale vs. someone with a TQ on their leg and stable. Priority vs. routine. And if all have equal injuries and the bomber is there, then work on who ever is closest to you and work your way down the line in the hallway. Until all are cared for or the doctor is physically exhausted and cannot perform safely.

Doctors oath "do no harm". So to let someone bleed out knowing u have the resources to save the person is a no go, regardless why they are there. And refer to above if all resources are maxed out. Systematically, work their way down the lind.



Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

aieahound

Re: The Jab
« Reply #624 on: September 23, 2021, 10:50:08 PM »
Put one in the terrorist’s head, if it’s definitive it’s the terrorist, to relieve it’s pain and start treating people.
Of course I would never do that.

That has nothing to do with being unvaxxed.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: The Jab
« Reply #625 on: September 23, 2021, 11:53:07 PM »
Put one in the terrorist’s head, if it’s definitive it’s the terrorist, to relieve it’s pain and start treating people.
Of course I would never do that.

That has nothing to do with being unvaxxed.

It has to do with how the powers that be and their sheeple treat the unvaxxed.

#FOCUS
"How can you diagnose someone with an obsessive-compulsive disorder
and then act as though I had some choice about barging in?"
-- Melvin Udall

hvybarrels

Re: The Jab
« Reply #626 on: September 24, 2021, 08:10:22 AM »
I can't talk about the morality of triage strategies without being accused of politicization?

How about you answer the question I raised of a doctor treating a terrorist who injured dozens before treating the people he injured?

You're the one who tried to politicize the algorithm, not me.

Terrorism terrorism terrorism!

It used to be if you neolib dronebois shouted it loud enough everyone would run around in a panic and stop noticing all the rights that you were stripping away.

Them days are over.
“Wars happen when the government tells you who the enemy is. Revolutions happen when you figure it out for yourselves.”

aieahound

Re: The Jab
« Reply #627 on: September 24, 2021, 10:44:20 AM »
It has to do with how the powers that be and their sheeple treat the unvaxxed.

Like comparing them to terrorists? That was a stretch by EEF.
Was just trying to point that out.
With some dark, maybe, humor.

changemyoil66

Re: The Jab
« Reply #628 on: September 24, 2021, 11:17:44 AM »
Here's a thought, since the vaxxed have such a higher chance of success, the plan should be to priority the unvaxxed because they are the most vulnerable according to HI politicians/media.

changemyoil66

Re: The Jab
« Reply #629 on: September 24, 2021, 11:19:07 AM »
I just wanted to point out to EEF, that I do not reply as much to him since he is on so late.  As in, at that hour, I'm no longer on a desk top so typing my full thought processes or info from a phone sucks.  And playing COD.

eyeeatingfish

Re: The Jab
« Reply #630 on: September 24, 2021, 08:01:32 PM »
When EMTs pull in, do they state why the person is injured? Like "he was caught raping a girl and a bystander smashed his head with a rock". Or do they state how the injury occurred. As in "his head was smashed in with a rock".

But like u asked, what if the emt or someone else was wrong? So in a bombing, there would be multiple people brought in. And if there are no resources, then triage occurs via injury type. Someone bleeding out and pale vs. someone with a TQ on their leg and stable. Priority vs. routine. And if all have equal injuries and the bomber is there, then work on who ever is closest to you and work your way down the line in the hallway. Until all are cared for or the doctor is physically exhausted and cannot perform safely.

Doctors oath "do no harm". So to let someone bleed out knowing u have the resources to save the person is a no go, regardless why they are there. And refer to above if all resources are maxed out. Systematically, work their way down the lind.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

My nurse friend I mentioned started as an EMT, sometimes they are told what happened, not simply the injury. People gossip but even then the backstory might help with treatment.

I brought up the terrorist example because I remember seeing a similar example before. I think it was a TV episode where a cop and robber who shot each other and the doctor had to decide which one to treat. It is an interesting moral/ethical dilemma.

It isn't an easy question. Some might prefer the ideal of a doctor completely blind to anything but the injruy/sickness of the patient but others might think doctors should make such judgements. Both sides have positive and negative arguments to them especially in the covid situation.

eyeeatingfish

Re: The Jab
« Reply #631 on: September 24, 2021, 08:03:41 PM »
Like comparing them to terrorists? That was a stretch by EEF.
Was just trying to point that out.
With some dark, maybe, humor.

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.

Though your comment about shooting them into the head did cause a dark humor style idea to pop into my head. An ER doctor could articulate a logistical decision not to treat the unvaccinated covid patients by reasoning that once the public found covid patients were being turned away it could make more people become vaccinated and thereby reduce the crowding in the hospital.

I do know that one of the triage criteria in some places allows for the doctor of screener to place a Dr. or nurse at the head of the treatment line because once the doctor or nurse recovered they would then be able to help with the overcrowding.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2021, 08:08:44 PM by eyeeatingfish »

eyeeatingfish

Re: The Jab
« Reply #632 on: September 24, 2021, 08:05:29 PM »
I just wanted to point out to EEF, that I do not reply as much to him since he is on so late.  As in, at that hour, I'm no longer on a desk top so typing my full thought processes or info from a phone sucks.  And playing COD.

I would join you but I haven't been into COD for a while. Looking forward to the next Battlefield though! But my xbox is having issues and I can't find the new series X anywhere!

changemyoil66

Re: The Jab
« Reply #633 on: September 24, 2021, 10:29:24 PM »
My nurse friend I mentioned started as an EMT, sometimes they are told what happened, not simply the injury. People gossip but even then the backstory might help with treatment.

I brought up the terrorist example because I remember seeing a similar example before. I think it was a TV episode where a cop and robber who shot each other and the doctor had to decide which one to treat. It is an interesting moral/ethical dilemma.

It isn't an easy question. Some might prefer the ideal of a doctor completely blind to anything but the injruy/sickness of the patient but others might think doctors should make such judgements. Both sides have positive and negative arguments to them especially in the covid situation.
Cop gets the benefit of the doubt.

Vs.

2 civillians in plain clothes. 1 uses deadly force in response to a crime. Cops show up and dont know what happened. Or a McDonalds worker in uniform at work and coworkers telling arriving EMT or PD guy in plain clothes tried to rob the place.

Different circumstances. Terrorist in your example  dont wear identifiable uniforms. So room for error is greater.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

eyeeatingfish

Re: The Jab
« Reply #634 on: September 25, 2021, 07:39:14 PM »
Cop gets the benefit of the doubt.

Vs.

2 civillians in plain clothes. 1 uses deadly force in response to a crime. Cops show up and dont know what happened. Or a McDonalds worker in uniform at work and coworkers telling arriving EMT or PD guy in plain clothes tried to rob the place.

Different circumstances. Terrorist in your example  dont wear identifiable uniforms. So room for error is greater.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Surely someone who just blew himself up would be pretty bad looking and not easily identifiable as the suspect so that would definitely be a difficulty in taking it into account in a triage situation. But really it is just a mental exercise to make someone think about the implications of using or not using moral judgements in triaging people.

hvybarrels

Re: The Jab
« Reply #635 on: September 27, 2021, 12:59:53 AM »
Wasn't comparing terrorists to the unvaccinated.

Yes you were.

Absolutely 100% positively no doubt about it this is exactly what you are doing with your sick little authoritarian thought experiment.
“Wars happen when the government tells you who the enemy is. Revolutions happen when you figure it out for yourselves.”

Flapp_Jackson

Re: The Jab
« Reply #636 on: September 27, 2021, 01:43:16 AM »
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.
"How can you diagnose someone with an obsessive-compulsive disorder
and then act as though I had some choice about barging in?"
-- Melvin Udall

changemyoil66

Re: The Jab
« Reply #637 on: September 27, 2021, 08:46:54 AM »
I would join you but I haven't been into COD for a while. Looking forward to the next Battlefield though! But my xbox is having issues and I can't find the new series X anywhere!

I'm waiting for BF or Halo to release toward the end of this year. Vanguard doesn't look that good IMO. I'm not a fan of the WW2 platforms due to lack of RDS, lasers, basically modern or future tech attachments.

hvybarrels

Re: The Jab
« Reply #638 on: September 27, 2021, 09:11:09 AM »
Next EEF thought experiment:

Why concentration camps are actually a good idea, and why it would be best if people like me are the ones to choose who gets sent there.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2021, 05:30:25 PM by hvybarrels »
“Wars happen when the government tells you who the enemy is. Revolutions happen when you figure it out for yourselves.”

changemyoil66

Re: The Jab
« Reply #639 on: September 27, 2021, 10:19:09 AM »
Next EEF thought experiment:

Why concentration camps are actually a good idea, and why it would be best if people like are the ones to choose who gets sent there.

Or another members thought process. Concentration camps are a good idea for the continuation of the nation. Science says the people in there are bad and have been peer reviewed and done by scholars who's credentials are impeccable.