it’s a universal truth that anything other than that will just end up in the following situation:
you have to decide how good or bad each patient is before you treat them.
What if it’s a terrorist, but they’re not in a uniform? What if they’re unconscious? Do you simply not treat anyone unconscious until you’ve given them a moral test? Should people who support a woman’s right to choose get healthcare? Some would say no. Why say Hamas militants are bad when the armies of the USA, Britain, Germany, France have committed atrocities? Should doctors not treat anyone in the military? Current or past? What about people who’ve been in a fight? Smokers? Drinkers? The overweight?
In the end you have to go back to “just treat everyone”.
It’s not a pure universal axiomatic truth, but it’s still a truth
how do you know that, if your sister was killed, and I trip and break my leg, I’m not your sisters killer? You’d have doctors who couldn’t treat anyone until we could prove without doubt their patient wasn’t a killer.
Imagine having a contagious disease that needs urgent treatment and the doctor sending you back home to inject the rest of the world because you were in a car crash where someone died
I think you are the one clinging to absolutes here.
That’s also an incredibly unlikely scenario that I would wager no human being has ever actually faced. We should build societal rules and norms around things that generally actually happen, not the most extreme or ‘nuanced’ versions of a scenario we can imagine.
By your logic we should have one hospital and a unique set of staff for each religion, one for felons, one for each race, etc. So that each doctor can work only on patients that they think deserve their help.
I responded with hyperbole to your hyperbole about doctors being forced to treat patients that had raped and murdered their family. But anyway, you’re clearly set on seeing it your way, and lacking in critical think skills, so have a good day in your own little world buddy.
it’s a universal truth that anything other than that will just end up in the following situation:
you have to decide how good or bad each patient is before you treat them.
What if it’s a terrorist, but they’re not in a uniform? What if they’re unconscious? Do you simply not treat anyone unconscious until you’ve given them a moral test? Should people who support a woman’s right to choose get healthcare? Some would say no. Why say Hamas militants are bad when the armies of the USA, Britain, Germany, France have committed atrocities? Should doctors not treat anyone in the military? Current or past? What about people who’ve been in a fight? Smokers? Drinkers? The overweight?
In the end you have to go back to “just treat everyone”.
It’s not a pure universal axiomatic truth, but it’s still a truth
Yeah, but doctors are people too and I don’t think they have a moral obligation to treat people who kill and rape their family.
It’s part of me not being autistic. I can see nuance in these situations and don’t cling to easy absolutes.
how do you know that, if your sister was killed, and I trip and break my leg, I’m not your sisters killer? You’d have doctors who couldn’t treat anyone until we could prove without doubt their patient wasn’t a killer.
Imagine having a contagious disease that needs urgent treatment and the doctor sending you back home to inject the rest of the world because you were in a car crash where someone died
I think you are the one clinging to absolutes here.
Okay, buddy. I can see you will not listen to reason here, and that’s okay. I’ve come across many people like you before.
I’m just gonna duck out and tell you to have a nice day.
I hope you do so.
“listen to reason”
the reason: “I am not autistic like you”
ok buddy have a good one
That’s also an incredibly unlikely scenario that I would wager no human being has ever actually faced. We should build societal rules and norms around things that generally actually happen, not the most extreme or ‘nuanced’ versions of a scenario we can imagine.
By your logic we should have one hospital and a unique set of staff for each religion, one for felons, one for each race, etc. So that each doctor can work only on patients that they think deserve their help.
That’s because I’m not advocating for your hyperbole, that doctors should judge whether each patient should be treated.
Not really. That’s your own hyperbole.
I responded with hyperbole to your hyperbole about doctors being forced to treat patients that had raped and murdered their family. But anyway, you’re clearly set on seeing it your way, and lacking in critical think skills, so have a good day in your own little world buddy.