4 ms·

You can't expect those who are unvaccinated taking up beds (potentially or not) to think about ethics. For a good part of our country it's a race to the bottom

You can't expect those who are unvaccinated taking up beds (potentially or not) to think about ethics. For a good part of our country it's a race to the bottom of "I got mine, f u" and those folks seem largely represented in the group that's currently stressing our hospitals. I do agree however. And, I think it's an ethically defensible position to not treat people who refuse to get vaccinated... even though it will never happen.

danenania 5y ago
If you open that door, should treatment also be denied to smokers, motorcycle riders, obese people, uninsured people, etc., etc.? It's about as slippery as a slope can get.
- peterangular 5y ago
  > denied to smokers Will be put at the end of recipient lists, or outright denied for organ transplants if you're an active smoker of the last 6 months. > uninsured people Will only be stabilized in the ER and sent home - actual treatment is only to stabilize the patient to get them back out the door as-per law. --- On motorcycles and obesity those are a bit harder to get into - but I will say that yes... for 2/4 of those we do actively deny medical treatment for better or worse. That makes me feel like we're already on the "slippery slope" - especially in regards to those without insurance... We literally have no problem denying life saving treatment to the uninsured here. And hell - even as an ex-smoker I agree with the places that don't allow active smokers on their transplant lists. Ethically that makes perfect sense to me.
  - danenania 5y ago
    Not getting a transplant isn't comparable to being denied a hospital bed. "Will only be stabilized in the ER" In other words: they will be treated. No one is saying we need to give the best treatments, or any kind of treatment that is scarce and competitive (like transplants) to unvaccinated people, but you're talking about refusing people any treatment and sending them out to die at home or on the streets. That's extremely cruel and certainly is not done anywhere in the US currently.
    - peterangular 5y ago
      Sorry - you brought these things up in regards to a slippery slope being denied treatment. I responded to you in good faith to say that half of those do have some sort of denial of treatment, specifically citing what is denied. I do not agree that stabilization of a patient is treating any underlying disease or cause. We're splitting hairs - I'm out.
      - danenania 5y ago
        Splitting hairs? Which one of us is referring to various forms of medical treatment as "denying treatment"? You're advocating for sending unvaccinated people away with zero treatment. None of your examples are remotely comparable. If you were really discussing in good faith, you would admit it.
        peterangular 5y ago
        > If you were really discussing in good faith, you would admit it. Right and that's why I'm out. I have made my arguments, and I don't appreciate you implying that I am discussing these things in bad-faith. If we disagree that is fine. Respectfully, I am done discussing this with you.
        danenania 5y ago
        You’re trying to claim stabilizing someone in the ER isn’t medical treatment. You are transparently arguing in bad faith and you know it. But sure, take your ball and go home since you can’t defend your arguments.
        pseudalopex 5y ago
        Denying treatment can mean denying any treatment or denying all treatment. They meant the 1st. You meant the 2nd.
        5y ago
s1artibartfast 5y ago
Will all of these people get their health tax and insurance money back when they are denied? Perhaps they should be able to opt out of both as a package deal?
- vkou 5y ago
  > Will all of these people get their health tax and insurance money back when they are denied? No, just like how if I need surgery, and the hospital is full of anti-vaxxers with COVID, and I can't get treatment, I currently don't get my money back.

danenania 5y ago

If you open that door, should treatment also be denied to smokers, motorcycle riders, obese people, uninsured people, etc., etc.? It's about as slippery as a slope can get.

peterangular 5y ago
> denied to smokers Will be put at the end of recipient lists, or outright denied for organ transplants if you're an active smoker of the last 6 months. > uninsured people Will only be stabilized in the ER and sent home - actual treatment is only to stabilize the patient to get them back out the door as-per law. --- On motorcycles and obesity those are a bit harder to get into - but I will say that yes... for 2/4 of those we do actively deny medical treatment for better or worse. That makes me feel like we're already on the "slippery slope" - especially in regards to those without insurance... We literally have no problem denying life saving treatment to the uninsured here. And hell - even as an ex-smoker I agree with the places that don't allow active smokers on their transplant lists. Ethically that makes perfect sense to me.
- danenania 5y ago
  Not getting a transplant isn't comparable to being denied a hospital bed. "Will only be stabilized in the ER" In other words: they will be treated. No one is saying we need to give the best treatments, or any kind of treatment that is scarce and competitive (like transplants) to unvaccinated people, but you're talking about refusing people any treatment and sending them out to die at home or on the streets. That's extremely cruel and certainly is not done anywhere in the US currently.
  - peterangular 5y ago
    Sorry - you brought these things up in regards to a slippery slope being denied treatment. I responded to you in good faith to say that half of those do have some sort of denial of treatment, specifically citing what is denied. I do not agree that stabilization of a patient is treating any underlying disease or cause. We're splitting hairs - I'm out.
    - danenania 5y ago
      Splitting hairs? Which one of us is referring to various forms of medical treatment as "denying treatment"? You're advocating for sending unvaccinated people away with zero treatment. None of your examples are remotely comparable. If you were really discussing in good faith, you would admit it.
      - peterangular 5y ago
        > If you were really discussing in good faith, you would admit it. Right and that's why I'm out. I have made my arguments, and I don't appreciate you implying that I am discussing these things in bad-faith. If we disagree that is fine. Respectfully, I am done discussing this with you.
        danenania 5y ago
        You’re trying to claim stabilizing someone in the ER isn’t medical treatment. You are transparently arguing in bad faith and you know it. But sure, take your ball and go home since you can’t defend your arguments.
        pseudalopex 5y ago
        Denying treatment can mean denying any treatment or denying all treatment. They meant the 1st. You meant the 2nd.
        5y ago

s1artibartfast 5y ago

Will all of these people get their health tax and insurance money back when they are denied? Perhaps they should be able to opt out of both as a package deal?

vkou 5y ago
> Will all of these people get their health tax and insurance money back when they are denied? No, just like how if I need surgery, and the hospital is full of anti-vaxxers with COVID, and I can't get treatment, I currently don't get my money back.