Should the elderly be hospitalized if they have corona?

But if that happened half of PF would disappear and never come back!

In all seriousness, this is a pretty serious issue. As a care ethicist I don't necessarily see a distinction based on age. That grandma needs to be care for, and that toddler as well. They're not people to be utilized for some greater goal, they're just people we need to care for. Maybe caring doesn't take the form of a ventilator but a willingness to be near them as they pass on.

 

How about the fortunate are denied treatment. Afterall, they have lived BETTER lives than those less fortunate. THEY had their time. Let the less fortunate live, and maybe even get a better shake, as that money they leave behind is spent for the good of the nation.

So, I propose, the better off be left to gasp for air, and shot up with morphine. Sounds fair, at least as fair as killing the elderly.

Maybe say, more than 150000 salary, or more than 700000 in the bank?

 

By 'society', do you mean individual HCPs or Agencies of Govt?

Individual HCPs should be able to say 'we can't treat that.' Though if they do, they should either be figuring out how to treat it, or preparing for a backlash.

Gov't most certainly should not be able to rrstrict someone from getting care, even if its for 'the greater good.'

Optimally, imo, Govt would certify each HCP for their maximum outbreak/qurantine capacity (which might be a big fat 0 if they dont have an isolation ward), and post warnings to potential patients at the HCP once they're over capacity, as the real purpose here is to prevent patients from falsely believing they are safe from infection at the HCP.

A big yellow or red sign reading 'this HCP is no longer in compliance with Cvirus isolation protocols US-Standard blah blah blah' would, imo, be Govt doing its due diligence to protect people by helping them make an informed decision. It may be that they are fine with exposure to the virus so long as they recieve treatment and care.

 

I mean any collective, and on an area buy area, case by case basis. If there is only one case in Wyoming, a medical team with nothing better to do will presumably not hesitate to treat great grandpa. New York City should be able to set whatever conditions right now necessary to minimize risk to providers and direct its resources in a prudent manner. If a particular medical team comprise of young nurses and doctors wants to treat an 80 or 90 year old cancer patient currently suffering from corona, I won't stop them. But my point is that they should be free to say "no" on a case by case basis.

 

I don't "necessarily" see it either. Obviously we are talking case by case, area by area. If an 80 year old corona patient is in perfect health with no underlying conditions (there are few octogenarians who so qualify) then sure, I'd hope he was treated.

But if a choice has to be made, and a 10 year old is lying next to him, the 10 year old gets the first available bed and ventilator.

Interesting that you say "not necessarily."

 

Should have built that bullet train. Then you put grandpa on it to a place with room to treat. Like France.

 

I don't say that there is. But the younger person should get preferential treatment under my proposal. Hopefully both are treated and cured, but in a squeeze, then the 10 year old, yeah, he gets priority over the 80 year old. He has already lived a nice long life. Driven a convertible, had sex and a single malt scotch, danced a waltz or two. I want the kid to have that same chance.

I don't understand your priorities at all. But again, I am not proposing to impose this by my personal fiat. We all vote.

 

We are not talking utopia; we are talking about a crowded ICU where choices have to be made right this second. If I get to decide, your child gets treated first, your grandpa second.

 

None of your biz. And irrelevant. Everybody (society) gets to vote on my proposal.

But if you want me to treat your grandfather's corona in an ICU before your child's corona in an ICU, assuming that a choice has to be made, then I think that's warped. In suspect your grandfather would agree with me.

 

No, I don't. And I don't say my opinion is more valid. But I am tired of reading lectures from armchair quarterbacks who only worry about their grandparents' well being and ignore every other factor.

 

Had to read that twice to get it. Yeah, I think some of my detractors worry that they won't get care. When and if I am ever running a metropolitan hospital, they might and they might not, depending on circumstances. We have a shortage of beds and ventilators and a lot of exhausted nurses.

So, my great grandpa and your 10 year old child are both symptomatic for Corona, in NYC, in mid April when we peak. Who, as between the two, gets the first available bed and the first available bed and the first available ventilator? My grandfather or your child?

Choose.

 

I think what is helpful here to know about my position is that the treatment itself doesn't matter in terms of success ratings. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. It's tangential to the fact people need care. If we have it for a person, then we have it and they can be treated with it. But if we don't, we find other ways to treat and care for that person. Maybe that person doesn't get a ventilator but has someone read to them. Maybe give some protective gear to family members so the sick won't be alone.

If it helps, this reminds me of thought experiment talked about by Carol Gilligain in a Different Voice. Basically the same situation but the husband has to steal medicine for his dying wife. It's really thought provoking.

I'm glad you posted this thread, this is a serious issue no one seems to want to care about.

 

Good article and very real.

 

We can agree that something here is warped

 

Then I would guess that you are not pro abor……. uh, choice? Scotch and waltzing and stuff for the little ones?

 

My grandparents are long dead and my responses was based entirely on my experience working in healthcare and my understanding of all the medical professionals I've known over the years.

I also can't help noticing how your position is shifting. You opened the thread declaring that nobody over the age of 80 should be admitted to hospital at all. That is unreasonable. Now you're talking about prioritising who gets treated first in the event of limited resources. That is reasonable and already happens, though not as crudely as you appear to imagine.

 

Op said that geriatrics with Corona or Ebola won’t be admitted to a hospital bed.

 

I'll take that shot and acknowledge that the OP could have been more sensitively crafted. If it's already being done, then we have no problem.

 

don't worry, our coming single payer will make this a reality for you.

 

I can't give a one word answer to that and do not respect one word answers from those that do, from the pro life or pro choice camps.

The majority of women undergoing an abortion procedure are in their 20's, which makes it a wholly different calculus. The baby is young, and so is the mother ... I mean fetus carrier.

https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

That said, I hope that few young women elect an abortion except when it's really necessary. I have no idea if that's the case. Maybe it is.

 

Situations like this have always had problems like this decision. I would hope that those who are charged with making those decisions can be strong enough to do so and also live with those decisions. I have grandkids and great grandkids and of course I would put them first. Before you get all sanctimonious about the relative value of youth, bear in mind that most people 70 and up have spent a lifetime putting their younger generation first. We will do this too.

 

Heed your own counsel.

 

All Lives are precious to G-d. Social Darwinism is Evil.

Many people say the same thing about people who are "not productive". I have Autism and Depression. This is scary.

 

In almost all cases, Suicide is a sin. Judaism has a little different opinion then Christianity.

No person is useless or unworthy of life. Not elderly, not unproductive individuals, not even criminals.

 

1) They may be very disabled.

2) Indeed, any implication of Social Darwinism is scary.

3) I must be opposed to Atheism as it is a sin against G-d. Selfishly, I am scared by Atheism as it leads to Social Darwinism. Life with Autism and Depression is difficult as is.