[SeaGypsy]

5 years into my above real life dilemma- I have stuck with the tradition of supporting my wife's widowed mother, whilst resisting absolutely any sense of being obliged to support healthy adults in the family. We have helped her twin sister get a passport and get to a few job interviews and we have set up a retail business which barely makes money but at least keeps some people in the family busy. Other more naive and gullible partners I know in cross cultural marriages have wound up supporting a whole bunch of people who have quit working due to this support being available- clearly not an ethical choice as supporting an aged widow.

[Subjectivist]

The child is # 1

[ROCKMAN]

SG - And then what of the next beggar...does one give him 75p? Perhaps the totally unselfish gives away the entire 125p. Does one deserve anything if anyone else has nothing? I imagine most would think the should keep only that which they need. So the next "ethical question": who determines what one "needs"? Certainly enough to survive and live a healthy life. Just yesterday I heard an advocate say that health care was "a right". Not a completely unreasonable proposition IMHO. If one accepts this does he give away all he has less what he needs to maintain his health? But does that include his kid's college fund? Does he sell his home and move in with his parents/child? If one measure themselves as truly unselfish how do retain more than the poorest amongst us. So what's the limit? Ethical to keep your 900 sq Ft home but the fellow with the 10,000 sq Ft home should liquidate? If you lived in the small house you might agree. But the family living in the VW van might say you should sell your small house and share with them. Just as the fellow with the bigger house might agree that the fellow with the 50,000 sq Ft McMansion should sell and share while it's reasonable for him to keep his 10,000 sq ft home. After all he educated himself and worked to earn what he has. But what if the McMansion owner did the same?

As was offered above: ethics are situational. So who amongst our merry band here cannot justify their current situation? Doesn't really matter what size your home might be. Because the guy living under the bridge can make the claim that the family living in the VW van should sell it and share with him. At some point we all decide we deserve whatever we have. Either that or we give up an amount. Or accept we are unethical and keep what we have. That is the "situation" for most of us, isn't it?

And sub: the child is #1. Which child...yours or the other guy's if you only have enough for one? Who would one choose in this "situation"?

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he child is # 1

[ROCKMAN]

P - Interesting. And that highlights the problem with defining what's ethical/moral: whose standards do you use? I would imagine most would say they should use their own. But that condemns any possibility of a societal norm since any group is composed of many different views. Your story reminds me of a report I read decades ago about the war crime trials of the Japanese officers that led the Bataan Death March. To a man they could not understand why they were being charged with brutality to their POW's. Those men had surrendered which was a huge violation of Japanese ethics/morality at the time. The Japanese officers actually thought the Brits and Americans would welcome the torture and deaths suffered by the POW's at the hands of the Japanese. They were wrong: they were all hanged. So who acted ethical in the execution of POW's: the Japanese whose actions were based upon their ethic norm or the allies who executed their Japanese POW's because they violated our ethic norms?

And if you say the stinking Japs...I'LL KILL YOU! After all you would have violated my ethnic norm. LOL

[Pops]

The answer is either society chooses to devote the resources necessary to achieve the greatest good or it leaves it's members to fend for themselves. Just that simple, either everyone has access or it's left to the market.

It isn't a matter of how many patients to save, its a matter of where to spend society's resources, for example does our society want a large standing military and worldwide footprint or does it want dialysis machines? Do we spend our resources on the "deferred interest" loophole and the other shenanigans that allow the 1% to continue to accumulate while the 99 stagnates and loses worth (after all, a tax break is called an "expenditure" because giving Mitt a $100 million break on his taxes has exactly the same effect as a government giveaway to immigrant welfare mothers on drugs) or do we attempt to give everyone some baseline of health care?


The answer currently seems in doubt if you listen to a vocal minority in the US who are drumming their feet for social darwinism, but interestingly, in the early '70s Medicare coverage for dialysis was extended to almost anyone who had end stage renal failure. It was the first instance of Medicare extended to anyone under 65. So the whole premise of "choosing" has been long settled, at least as far as Dialysis goes...

Of course we can always repeal that program too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_Stage_ ... se_Program

[ROCKMAN]

"...does our society want a large standing military and worldwide footprint or does it want dialysis machines?" I believe we already have that answer. 'Society' has a wide range of opinions on the subject.

[SeaGypsy]

As I already stated, I have 2 societies to consider at near polar opposites.
Right now my wife's identical twin is considering a job offer in Dubai- 24 12 hour days in 28- for the grand sum of 15k PhP- about $400 a month. The dole in Australia is 2.5 times as much.

[ROCKMAN]

Sort of along the lines of different ethical views: right and left typically vary a good bit in such views...no new news there. And then right/left split percentages haven't changed much over the years. But someone came up with a metric to describe how far apart the two sides tend to be. Supposedly in recent years the groups have moved much further apart. The current foolishness in DC tends to confirm IMHO. Assuming this is correct what might that say about a wider gap in how each side views ethical decisions? Now that I've stirred the sh*t up I'll just step back out of the way.

[sparky]

.
Not too hard a choice ,
on the given informations The first candidate get it ,

the housewife , two small kids ,young , useful activity , good social integration , white ...!

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '
')And sub: the child is #1. Which child...yours or the other guy's if you only have enough for one? Who would one choose in this "situation"?

[thylacine]

Blah, Blah, Blah ... Pussies!

I'll rise to the bait, put on my Nazi Hospital Administrator's uniform, open the Excel Sheet of Wisdom and decree that the 9 year old girl, 40 y.o. ex-con, 23 y.o. hooker and the 60 y.o. lawyer are off the program. Why? A score based on age, occupation/usefulness to society and whether they have dependent children or not. The selection isn't sexist (2M, 2F), ageist or racist (2W, 2B) - so would be more likely to pass muster in any subsequent auditing.

Harsh? Cruel? Certainly! But probably just a version of the thinking that was behind my father's health care (or lack of) in the UK National Health Service a few years ago.

[SeaGypsy]

Yada yada! I just did 6 months looking after a 78 year old dude with bone cancer and $750k in assets. Our medicare system just covered his second $70k round of chemo in 12 months with no expectation of cure, a 50/50 chance of 2 more years. Looks like the Brits are running out of money. Maybe they should consider selling some girls to China?

[Simon_R]

Ethics are situational and subjective.

So, surely every answer is right from the point of view of the person giving it.

To say what is best for society, also is subjective, as what is 'right' or 'best'
let alone what constitutes 'society'.

Make a reality TV show out of it, that way the public decide someone gets treated, and more importantly
I make loads of money.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thylacine', 'B')lah, Blah, Blah ... Pussies!

I'll rise to the bait, put on my Nazi Hospital Administrator's uniform, open the Excel Sheet of Wisdom and decree that the 9 year old girl, 40 y.o. ex-con, 23 y.o. hooker and the 60 y.o. lawyer are off the program. Why? A score based on age, occupation/usefulness to society and whether they have dependent children or not. The selection isn't sexist (2M, 2F), ageist or racist (2W, 2B) - so would be more likely to pass muster in any subsequent auditing.

Harsh? Cruel? Certainly! But probably just a version of the thinking that was behind my father's health care (or lack of) in the UK National Health Service a few years ago.

[SeaGypsy]

I think it's more that we are not wanting to have to judge ourselves. I gave a coded answer- 'those needing the most time to say goodbye'.

Housewife, 1. Child, 2. Minister, 3. Teacher, 4. Convict, 5.College Student , 6.(Then the less attached according to most potential to live longer)- Prostitute, 7. Police Officer, 8. Lawyer, 9. Doctor, 10.

(The question was to number the lot- )
(Edited)

[Timo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thylacine', 'B')lah, Blah, Blah ... Pussies!

I'll rise to the bait, put on my Nazi Hospital Administrator's uniform, open the Excel Sheet of Wisdom and decree that the 9 year old girl, 40 y.o. ex-con, 23 y.o. hooker and the 60 y.o. lawyer are off the program. Why? A score based on age, occupation/usefulness to society and whether they have dependent children or not. The selection isn't sexist (2M, 2F), ageist or racist (2W, 2B) - so would be more likely to pass muster in any subsequent auditing.

Harsh? Cruel? Certainly! But probably just a version of the thinking that was behind my father's health care (or lack of) in the UK National Health Service a few years ago.

[Simon_R]

Ok, Here is my List

The first Four are in, as they make money and can thus contribute to the treatment (Taxes or Insurance), not sure about the minister, I assume they earn ?, and either way he serves a current purpose.
The Lawyer @ 60 has still 5 years of work in him, so could contribute.
The last four (Doctor,Disabled,Ex-Con,Prostitute) either do not or cannot contribute, so would be a net drain on future resources.

Live
Teacher
Housewife
Policeman
College Student
Minister
Lawyer

Die
Doctor
Disabled
Ex-Con
Prostitute

[Tanada]

Alrighty then, time to expose my own biases.

Selected to live
1: Housewife, Female with two young children
2: Autistic child, Female and young child, Autism is not crippling and many function very well.
3: College Student, young, excellent candidate for long life and future transplant success.
4: Ex-Convict (manslaughter), causing accidental death is unfortunate but two young children.
5: Prostitute, Female with very young child. Few stay prostitutes beyond this age.
6: Minister, Female and works to help others.

Selected to die
7: Police Officer, sorry would give it if I had resource capacity for only 7, works to help others.
8: Teacher, sorry would give it if I had the capacity for only 8, works to help others.
9: Lawyer, profession, gender and lack of minor children, three strikes, Low priority candidate.
10: Doctor, educated male knew how to prevent kidney failure and didn't. Lowest priority.

In the real world the Doctor and Lawyer could fly to Asia and buy a transplant, but that wasn't an option in the exercise.

[vision-master]

Nice delete there Tanadra.

Why the knowledge filters?

What's YOUR agenda anyways, eh?

I post a response about current day ethics and you haven't the ethics to leave it well enough alone?


eth·ics
[eth-iks] Show IPA

plural noun
1.
( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.

2.
the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.

3.
moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.

4.
( usually used with a singular verb ) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.