25 ms·
This is one of the few fairly clear cases in real life where you could make a utilitarian argument, though. Sacrifice a few lives now to save more in the long r
by zasz 11y ago
This is one of the few fairly clear cases in real life where you could make a utilitarian argument, though. Sacrifice a few lives now to save more in the long run. I wouldn't want to be the government that has to dictate this policy, though. The guilt would be too much.
- th0waway 11y agoYou first! Seriously though, how do you chose who has to die, so that others may live?
- cryoshon 11y agoYep, that's my angle. Utilitarianism is king in epidemiology. We can pretend otherwise, but frequently our hand will be forced anyway. I don't know if we're going to need to "sacrifice" people who have poly-drug resistant bacteria, but I'm guessing it won't be in our control anyway, if the option is between doing nothing and the patients dying versus doing everything we can and still having the patient die. Damage control is critical, and sentimentality can't get in the way. FWIW, I wrote an in depth report on controlling poly drug resistant tuberculosis in poor countries when I was in college... the conclusion was that quarantine was not only necessary, it was the only effective course of action for people with full spectrum drug resistant TB. Of course, TB is far more infectious and lethal than garden variety "bacteria".