With the notion of "flattening the curve" in America seeming less and less likely as infection rates explode, overwhelmed hospitals are going to have to make very difficult decisions about who to put on life-saving ventilators—which are very limited.
While we haven't explored ethics too much in class, this situation brings up the idea of Utilitarianism, which argues you should make decisions based on what would do the most good for the most people. As Lydia Dugdale says in the piece linked above, “If we give scarce treatments to those who don’t stand to benefit (and have a high chance of dying anyway), then not only will they die, but those with a higher likelihood of survival (but require ventilator support) will also die.”
Alex John London also agrees with this way of thinking, but employs Rawls' "Veil of Ignorance" notion to arrive at his conclusion. He says, “Such agents might agree that in a pandemic, when not everyone can be saved, health care systems should use their resources to save as many lives as possible—because that is the strategy that allows each person a fair chance of being able to pursue their life plan.”
Of course it's not "ethical" to leave anyone infected with COVID-19 to die, but given the resources, hospitals nationwide are going to have to decide what's most ethical.
Do you guys agree with the ethics involved here? Do you think we should be taking a different approach to this dire situation? Give your thoughts in the comments and let's start a discussion! Stay safe!
Utilitarian ethics fails to reassure us in this context, doesn't it, for the same reason it fails with regard to hypothetical runaway trolleys? No innocent person deserves to die, but the utilitarian calculus insists that we have a moral obligation to kill some specific innocent persons in order to promote "the greatest good."
ReplyDeleteBut as the Existentialists remind us, not to choose is still to choose. So, my preference (from the safe distance of my armchair) would be to save as many younger and healthier lives as possible. In other words, when it comes time to make those impossible life/death decisions, decide in favor of saving those who have the potential to live many more productive years still ahead of them.
As I say, that's an armchair judgement. If I'm waiting for my ventilator in the ICU I might give a different answer!
I think this is a really hard decision, and I wonder if having to turn some patients away to treat one's more likely to survive would violate a doctors Hippocratic oath?
ReplyDeleteThere is shorter supplies and lack of staff because the hospitals are ran with a larger idea of profit than anything else.
ReplyDelete6.
Week 3/26/20
DeleteA pandemic movie during a pandemic. I am sure great ideas will come from that.
6. 1:17 AM CDT
Being ignorant is such an easy thing to be in todays society with so many different types of information. Maybe keeping an open mind is one of the best things an individual can do.
6. 1:07 AM CDT
This reminds of a different saying. When the going gets tough, the tough get going.
6. 1:10 AM CDT
There is shorter supplies and lack of staff because the hospitals are ran with a larger idea of profit than anything else.
6. 1:28 AM CDT
The idea of turning away some patients to treat others is not a foreign concept to modern medicine. In the ER and after any mass casualty situation, healthcare workers triage patients based on their severity and give priority to those that are most likely to survive. Section 6
ReplyDeleteYou're right. The concept of triage is a frightening one. I'm certain its a decision that no hospital wants to make, but there comes a point when it's the only option. So it goes huh?
Delete