I’d assume we want everyone to survive and carry on with their lives equally. Yet, if we can’t, there’s a choice of distributing our doctors’ time and equipments towards some of patients rather than others.
Policies deciding that choice in general, if implemented, naturally smell like death. That’d organically lead to some marks for a cut-off, the obvious one is the age - like excluding 70+ patients from active treatment and supporting them as they are instead, while prefering younger folks, because they have more projected lifespan ahead of them (AND MORE VALUE TO THE REGIIIIME!). Then, there is a game of chances for recovery. Then there are biases against lung, stomack or skin cancer patients who neglected their bodies themselves etc etc etc. And we don’t even touch the problem of these policies being sexist, racist or otherwise based on unscientific grounds.
But if not over-generalized policies that can mark some categories as not-worthy patients, we’d then assume the power to decide is in the hands of individual doctors who do have the problems in the last paragraph, but with individual power to decide as well as individual responsibility for that (but they can ask patients themselves if they want it?).
My question is: should we even seek a universal answer to that dillema? What is the beacon to navigate us here, balancing general policies and individual responsibilities? How’d we personally judge a party who’d make such decision (+ if we are their patient and we don’t want to die)?
I’ve tried my best not to suggest any answer and not to instigate any sort of an infight, but if it’s not ok, please delete it.
We already have an answer to this, it’s literally how hospitals work in every Universal healthcare country. It’s generally decided on using a base of the factors you mentioned, plus a few more (like the resources available in the region). Doctors also generally get a say as a group at the hospital, they all take ethics classes at school for a reason.
To add further to this idea of managing death, the government does this all the time for other industries too.
For example they balance speed limits for cars (deaths vs utility for transportation)
They set maximum allowed concentrations of harmful chemicals in food and water (100% vs Good enough)
The list goes on and on.
In North America they do a shit job of this particular balancing act
Do they? What would you prefer to see?
Much slower speed limits as well as physical traffic calming measures to limit how fast people are comfortable going on streets in cities. Currently the way it’s handled is mostly by trying to optimize for car throughput. There is no consideration to the safety of pedestrians or cyclists, nor really of the risk to drivers at higher speeds in a collision. North American cities are so drunk on car-centric approaches to urban planning that they can’t comprehend how to build cities that are actually conducive to human life anymore.
And how much would lower speed limits cost the economy?
How many dollars per human life saved would you like?
Lol
-Homer Simpson