Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="59 Dano" data-source="post: 4644624" data-attributes="member: 23516">You&#039;re looking at it wrong, as a case of A vs B.&nbsp; Neither of your arguments are wrong (or right).A doctor, with all of his resources at his disposal -his knowledge and training, his equipment, his staff, etc.- can save seven of ten lives.&nbsp; More money gives him the ability to improve/upgrade his resources to the degree that faced with a similar situation in the future, he can save eight of ten lives. From an ethical standpoint, his obligation is to do as much as can be reasonably be expected to save as many lives as possible.&nbsp; Treating the seven patients who are going to put him in a better position to save more lives in the future is the most ethical option.A lottery?&nbsp; That means that people who are willing and able to pay through the nose for care don&#039;t get it because something random didn&#039;t happen in their favor.&nbsp; What good is that?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="59 Dano, post: 4644624, member: 23516"] You're looking at it wrong, as a case of A vs B. Neither of your arguments are wrong (or right). A doctor, with all of his resources at his disposal -his knowledge and training, his equipment, his staff, etc.- can save seven of ten lives. More money gives him the ability to improve/upgrade his resources to the degree that faced with a similar situation in the future, he can save eight of ten lives. From an ethical standpoint, his obligation is to do as much as can be reasonably be expected to save as many lives as possible. Treating the seven patients who are going to put him in a better position to save more lives in the future is the most ethical option. A lottery? That means that people who are willing and able to pay through the nose for care don't get it because something random didn't happen in their favor. What good is that? [/QUOTE]

Verification