Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook

The DN of the Debate. We should be afraid of the young people in care is not able to cope with all of the

Who is going to prevail, when vital resources are not sufficient at all. There is a shortage of staff, equipment, and some patients can be salvaged, others may

- 14 reads.

The DN of the Debate. We should be afraid of the young people in care is not able to cope with all of the

Who is going to prevail, when vital resources are not sufficient at all. There is a shortage of staff, equipment, and some patients can be salvaged, others may take a back seat. Who is going to be saved, who is going to take a back seat? My answer to that is simple: the saving of the young at first, and if it is at all possible, all of us old people in the other place. Of course,? Perhaps, however, the taboo of, for example, the Swedish social banning of priorities, with reference to chronological age.

if there Is no alternative to the approach that I am advocating? In the literature, various proposals have been made; I'm going to review two of the alternatives to my stance and to show that the position of the defence as it is, as a matter of course, in spite of it all.

1

not all can be saved, giving to each one an equal chance to be saved, it has been said. , Flip a coin, if necessary. It is available as an option for my position but it is not a good idea. This can be illustrated by a case where they could save five patients by means of a measure, or only one, if you choose a different action. The situation is such that you can't save them all.

How the Swedish government was able at once to invest in the needs-based principles, and the ban introduced, with the aid of the chronological age? The answer is simple: you have thought wrong.

Consider the the case it it. Five people are stranded on a deserted island. A person is stranded on a different island. We may just have to send an expedition to one of the islands. Sure, we can flip a coin on where to go, but then we could just save one, at a time when we could have saved the five. As a philosopher John Taurek has said that it should be the flip of a coin, also in this situation (the example he has constructed). However, it reminds me of what Cicero wrote after a fact-finding visit of the filosofiskolorna in the city of Athens, namely, that there is no idea so crazy that it is not serious to have been a philosopher.

2 , Could it not, instead, make a general policy of always saving the most, if you have to choose. , all of us can find ourselves in a situation where we need to be saved. Then, it is reasonable to believe that we are among the many than among the few. We are all one, equal to the maximum chance to be saved. Or more simple: to save as many people as possible.

" It is a principle that has also been defended as an alternative to the one I am advocating. However, it is unreasonable, then it suggests that the young, old, in need of vital medical care. We should save as many people as possible, but in the first instance, the young, and in the second place, if possible, for us older people.

also , those who want to maximize the happiness in the world. Look forward to the future, calls on the utilitaristen. A young patient can live longer and get more out of her, she will be saved, than that of an older one. This is assuming that the medical conditions are not the same. All other things being equal, bet on the younger one, what's the utilitaristen was going to say.

However, there is controversy. Such a line of argument is banned from the prioriteringsdiskussioner in health care. It states that the patient with the greatest need should be given absolute priority over another patient with a similar chance of survival. There has been talk about the needs-based principles, or the principle of solidarity, the two names for the same thing).

But what does that mean? This results in the logic that we should not give priority to the younger over the older? No, this is a misunderstanding. Also, the needs-based principles suggest that you should make, which I agree with, save the young rather than the elderly, if you have to choose, and the medical circumstances are the same.

and , as has been expressed by the classical liberalism of john locke and John Rawls (1921-2002). This argument has the cape, directed to the end. We do consider, say, First, to humanity as a superindivid. It is reasonable to sacrifice a part of an individual, for the happiness of others, much like when an individual makes the sacrifices of the youth, in order to be able to live a better life as an adult.

we will Take the Presidency very seriously, and attach importance to the fact that we live as integrated and of the particular's life, we should focus on the tjugoåringen. She is in danger, of course, that is just to get-twenty, hopefully to the good, if they die now. Sjuttiotreåringen has already attracted seventy-three good years.

However, there is no such superindivid. Humanity is composed of individuals who are living, integrated, and separate personal lives. It is not possible to morally compensate for a person's loss of somebody else's (larger) profit. It is reasonable to give the preference, he says, is for the person who has it the worst (the worst possible life"). First, to give the so-called ”lexical” priority to the lowest-set, an expression which found its way in to the Swedish social.

who, then, is deprived of the standard of, for example, a tjugoåring to compete with sjuttiotreåring of critical equipment and / or staff. Assume that each of them can probably be saved, but not both. Who is going to play a bigger role? Who is the worst set?

we will Take the Presidency very seriously, and attach importance to the fact that we live as integrated and of the particular's life, we should focus on the tjugoåringen. She is in danger, of course, that is just to get-twenty, hopefully to the good, if they die now. Sjuttiotreåringen has already attracted seventy-three good years. He will die for now is it's not a big deal. Tjugoåringen having the opportunity to acquire his win.

as well as a forward-looking utilitarian line of reasoning, that is, a backward-looking reasoning on the basis of the needs-based principles, converging at the same time investing in the younger generation. The seminar room can be, we are utilitarians and rawlsianer bickering about who is right. In the clinic, we'll give the same advice.

How does the Swedish government have been able at once to invest in the needs-based principles, and the ban introduced, with the aid of the chronological age? The answer is simple: you have thought wrong.

the Utilitarians, and rawlsianer is not only to agree to go on the younger the patient, the patient in front of them. Each camp would also like to give the highest priority to the ones who care for us and to maintain critical societal functions. It is not because they particularly deserve to be saved, but for purely instrumental reasons. If we don't care about them, there are no resources to share for the rest of us.
Link to a graphic

Avatar
Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.