5 ms·

> We cannot take people's delusions into account when giving care. But what we can take into account is "will they make the most of this care?" Who is this we?

> We cannot take people's delusions into account when giving care. But what we can take into account is "will they make the most of this care?" Who is this we? I'm not a doctor or nurse or any other kind of healthcare professional, so I (rightfully) have no input into decisions like this. Is it safe to assume the same is true for you? Who is to say some "antivaxxer" or alcoholic that you're ready to deprioritize wouldn't go on to accomplish great things? You may find that hard to imagine (which is a consequence of thinking in sloppy terms like "antivaxxer") but again, you have to remember that these are people from all walks of life, all different levels of education. To think that you are qualified to judge who will make the most of their lives seems delusional in itself to me.

xvector 5y ago
> Who is to say some "antivaxxer" or alcoholic that you're ready to deprioritize wouldn't go on to accomplish great things? They might. But the question is not "whether they will accomplish great things," but rather, "whether they will make the best use of the limited care we can provide." And the answer to that is still "no." It's why obese people and alcoholics are turned away from transplants, and on average, wait years longer - often dying in the process. Could obese and alcoholics go on to do great things? Almost certainly! But, will they make the most use of the transplant? Given their choices so far - no. So, they are frequently turned away. It is the same situation here.
- ifyoubuildit 5y ago
  > But the question is not "whether they will accomplish great things," but rather, "whether they will make the best use of the limited care we can provide." Maybe I'm being dense, but I don't see how these aren't the same thing. What does it mean to make the best use of medical care then? I was assuming best use meant something like return on investment of resources (which is certainly a cold way to look at human lives, but I don't know how else to read that). I can think of a couple potential metrics there - years lived after, "value" added to society - but I don't see how vaccine status could be reasonably expected to predict those metrics. I'm also taking your word that we choose transplant patients this way, since I have no knowledge there. Reading about it a little, it sounds like its not so cut and dry. Are we really disqualifying these people because they have specific conditions, or are we doing it because of some metric like years lived after or odds of the procedure working?

xvector 5y ago

> Who is to say some "antivaxxer" or alcoholic that you're ready to deprioritize wouldn't go on to accomplish great things? They might. But the question is not "whether they will accomplish great things," but rather, "whether they will make the best use of the limited care we can provide." And the answer to that is still "no." It's why obese people and alcoholics are turned away from transplants, and on average, wait years longer - often dying in the process. Could obese and alcoholics go on to do great things? Almost certainly! But, will they make the most use of the transplant? Given their choices so far - no. So, they are frequently turned away. It is the same situation here.

ifyoubuildit 5y ago
> But the question is not "whether they will accomplish great things," but rather, "whether they will make the best use of the limited care we can provide." Maybe I'm being dense, but I don't see how these aren't the same thing. What does it mean to make the best use of medical care then? I was assuming best use meant something like return on investment of resources (which is certainly a cold way to look at human lives, but I don't know how else to read that). I can think of a couple potential metrics there - years lived after, "value" added to society - but I don't see how vaccine status could be reasonably expected to predict those metrics. I'm also taking your word that we choose transplant patients this way, since I have no knowledge there. Reading about it a little, it sounds like its not so cut and dry. Are we really disqualifying these people because they have specific conditions, or are we doing it because of some metric like years lived after or odds of the procedure working?