3 ms·
I think another way to look at this is minimizing risk/resulting guilt. The broken leg example seems to support that - the father is paying for the best possibl
by sologoub 9y ago
I think another way to look at this is minimizing risk/resulting guilt. The broken leg example seems to support that - the father is paying for the best possible care for his son, even if the outcome is the same (leg heals properly) as the ER doctor, the father has obsolved himself of the risk that he didn't do enough and allowed the leg not to heal properly.
In other words, the (I'm guessing) relatively slim chance there is a complication with the broken leg is not worth it to the wealthy father to take.
- hn_throwaway_99 9y ago> In other words, the (I'm guessing) relatively slim chance there is a complication with the broken leg is not worth it to the wealthy father to take. In medicine, though, there have been a lot of recent studies recently that have shown that too much care can be harmful (especially in the orthopedic realm). Sometimes the best thing to do really is nothing, but when you're paying 40k a year, my guess is you, and more importantly your doctors, would rarely take that point of view.