In case of epidemic, break glass.

2008-05-05 16:33:58

#1

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6961|Long Island, New York

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/137 … _pandemic/

One of my teachers (for my Holocaust class no less...talk about massive death ) showed this to the class today. A panel has decided (or rather, advised) the God-like task of deciding who will live and who will die in case of a major epidemic (they're saying the Flu) should hit. Here's the list of some of the people who they think shouldn't get care:

* People older than 85.
* Those with severe trauma, which could include critical injuries from car crashes and shootings.
* Severely burned patients older than 60.
* Those with severe mental impairment, which could include advanced Alzheimer's disease.
* Those with a severe chronic disease, such as advanced heart failure, lung disease or poorly controlled diabetes.

Personally, although it goes against every moral in the book of human nature, I believe it's necessary. While extremely hard to do within, we must play God in times of crisis where we simply can not get enough medical care to everyone if say 1/4th of the population in America got strucken with a deadly disease.

Your thoughts? Should we attempt to care for these people while risking the lives of healthy, young people? Or should we put the healthy/young people at a priority?

Last edited by Poseidon (2008-05-05 16:36:39)

2008-05-05 16:37:42

#2

MAGUIRE93: High Angle Hell; +182|6617|Schofield Barracks

healthy young people should be a priority.

2008-05-05 16:38:49

#3

IRONCHEF: Member; +385|6914|Northern California

zzzzzz...already had some "survival of the fittest" type threads and the asclowns that invoke them and side with the slaughtering of people (for population control or whatever) usually end up getting fried by the mature adults on this forum. But have at it.

2008-05-05 16:47:47

#4

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6965|Texas - Bigger than France

Hopefully there's room for bunny hoppers and nade spammers in the ark....

2008-05-05 16:53:25

#5

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|7072

Poseidon wrote:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1371497/panel_advises_who_should_be_denied_treatment_in_catastrophic_pandemic/

One of my teachers (for my Holocaust class no less...talk about massive death ) showed this to the class today. A panel has decided (or rather, advised) the God-like task of deciding who will live and who will die in case of a major epidemic (they're saying the Flu) should hit. Here's the list of some of the people who they think shouldn't get care:

* Stupid people
Personally, although it goes against every moral in the book of human nature, I believe it's necessary. While extremely hard to do within, we must play God in times of crisis where we simply can not get enough medical care to everyone if say 1/4th of the population in America got strucken with a deadly disease.

Your thoughts? Should we attempt to care for these people while risking the lives of healthy, young people? Or should we put the healthy/young people at a priority?

2008-05-05 17:00:27

#6

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6952|Global Command

What if the doctors get it too?
And the police. The firemen.

It'll be every man for his self.

As in The Stand by Stephen King, the world could be decimated in a little over two weeks by the right strain.

2008-05-05 18:00:31

#7

Ender2309: has joined the GOP; +470|6994|USA

if theres cure but not enough to go around, its going to go to those who need it most and can bring the most return, just like when we're short on flu vaccines, sans instant support for the elderly or cancerous. the young kids will be granted life as will those who can defend the nation. the medical and emergency teams (police, fire, etc) will be saved. after that what ever is left is going to go to the highest bidder. sorry to Alzheimer's patients, but your family probably won't be able to afford to keep you alive and babbling.

as well, the rules of transplant lists will be enacted. if you're likely to waste the second chance you get (poorly controlled diabetes, severe obesity, drinker, druggie, smoker, etc) you're not going to get the cure.

thats how it's going to go down, regardless of whatever this panel recommends.

ATG stop being so alarmist. it scares the small children.

2008-05-05 18:34:38

#8

Steel: on_Target; +65|6740|Sarasota Fl

theres an actual Holocaust class?
that seems odd,
does this last the school year or is it only a week or something?

2008-05-05 18:53:47

#9

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6576|what

If you look at who is targeted as un-deserving of life, it's quite clearly the elderly.

And if an epidemic hits, they are the most vulnerable to start with, most likely to become infected, and most likely to pass the disease on. And if they pass this disease on, it will evolve and form new stains and be even more deadly.

If you were to treat these people as a priority, but also treat cases indiscriminately in other victims, you'd probably have a better chance of survival.

2008-05-05 18:59:27

#10

Ender2309: has joined the GOP; +470|6994|USA

TheAussieReaper wrote:
If you look at who is targeted as un-deserving of life, it's quite clearly the elderly.

And if an epidemic hits, they are the most vulnerable to start with, most likely to become infected, and most likely to pass the disease on. And if they pass this disease on, it will evolve and form new stains and be even more deadly.

If you were to treat these people as a priority, but also treat cases indiscriminately in other victims, you'd probably have a better chance of survival.

actually, the contingency plan is for a pandemic, which is when a disease jumps species and starts infecting humans, like bird flu, mad cow, etc.

if a pandemic were to strike all people would be equally vulnerable as we don't have an immunity to it and our bodies haven't seen it before.

2008-05-05 19:08:43

#11

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6961|Long Island, New York

Steel wrote:
theres an actual Holocaust class?
that seems odd,
does this last the school year or is it only a week or something?

The entire second semester. It's mainly based on Audio/Visual stuff. We're watching the Pianist this week, and Schindler's List next week. It's really only limited to our school.

2008-05-05 19:12:51

#12

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6576|what

That makes more sense, but it's still clearly refusing treatment based on age.

Everyone older than 85. Those with Alzheimer's disease. And those with a heart/lung problems or diabetes.

Unless the treatment was severely limited in supply there's no other reason to refuse medical treatment. The line "they are too old and are likely to die anyway" should be a mute point.

2008-05-05 19:16:35

#13

Deadmonkiefart: Floccinaucinihilipilificator; +177|7129

It seems pretty sound to me. If they can't treat everybody, they have to pick and choose.

2008-05-05 19:22:06

#14

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|7189|UK

If something like a massive pandemic did happen you would have to priorities for the survival of the species. In the end that is all that matters. I would rather sacrifice the few to save everyone else than just try to be morally right and let everyone die for the sake of our pride.

2008-05-05 19:27:09

#15

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6828|North Carolina

Considering the fact that society normally operates by sucking the life out of the young for the sake of the old, yeah, I'd say this is fair.

Everyday, we pay into a system (Social Security) that we'll never get to use when we get old.

2008-05-05 19:31:30

#16

BVC: Member; +325|7118

Sounds like triage, but on a massive scale. It sucks, but it'll have to be done.

2008-05-05 19:52:15

#17

HurricaИe: Banned; +877|6384|Washington DC

Pubic wrote:
Sounds like triage, but on a massive scale. It sucks, but it'll have to be done.

Triage flipped around actually... triage usually gets people with the biggest injuries treated first (e.g. in a suicide bombing). For something like an H5N1 outbreak though, they'd want to use limited resources on the people most likely to survive.

2008-05-05 20:40:00

#18

liquix: Member; +51|6877|Peoples Republic of Portland

If it got real bad real fast...those people would just die anyways.

2008-05-05 22:06:53

#19

twiistaaa: Member; +87|7091|mexico

in an epidemic wouldn't those people just naturally die quickly anyway?

and what do severly burned 60 year olds have to do with anything? what does severly burned mean? or is it literally someone who is 60 and has been burnt in a fire at some point in their lives? who is getting burnt during a flu epidemic?

2008-05-05 22:22:17

#20

GodFather: Blademaster's bottom bitch; +387|6643|Phoenix, AZ

MAGUIRE93 wrote:
healthy young people should be a priority.

qft

Unless theyre like scientists that we may need in the future

Education - Age - Health - Role In Society

those should be priorities (by Role in society, I mean scientist, doctors, dentists, engineers etc.)

2008-05-05 22:25:31

#21

N00bkilla55404: Voices are calling...; +136|6354|Somewhere out in Space

Burns reduce the body's ability to defend itself, since a majority of the natural defense has been replaced by scar tissue, the immune system is forced to use a vast majority of its resources just to prevent infections; there simply isn't enough left to fight.

2008-05-06 04:04:33

#22

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|7044|London, England

Poseidon wrote:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1371497/panel_advises_who_should_be_denied_treatment_in_catastrophic_pandemic/

One of my teachers (for my Holocaust class no less...talk about massive death ) showed this to the class today. A panel has decided (or rather, advised) the God-like task of deciding who will live and who will die in case of a major epidemic (they're saying the Flu) should hit. Here's the list of some of the people who they think shouldn't get care:

* People older than 85.
* Those with severe trauma, which could include critical injuries from car crashes and shootings.
* Severely burned patients older than 60.
* Those with severe mental impairment, which could include advanced Alzheimer's disease.
* Those with a severe chronic disease, such as advanced heart failure, lung disease or poorly controlled diabetes.
Personally, although it goes against every moral in the book of human nature, I believe it's necessary. While extremely hard to do within, we must play God in times of crisis where we simply can not get enough medical care to everyone if say 1/4th of the population in America got strucken with a deadly disease.

Your thoughts? Should we attempt to care for these people while risking the lives of healthy, young people? Or should we put the healthy/young people at a priority?

It's easy to say shit like that, when you and your family fit under the "Healthy" category. Not that I know anyone that fit the criteria above *touch wood*, but I'm just playing Devils Advocate or w/e

2008-05-06 04:11:22

#23

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6646|Escea

My dad's a Paramedic and he tells me that if he was treating someone for a broken leg in say a mall, and a bomb goes off, he has to just abandon that person and get to safety so he's ready to deal with the situation.

2008-05-06 15:21:11

#24

Ender2309: has joined the GOP; +470|6994|USA

Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Poseidon wrote:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1371497/panel_advises_who_should_be_denied_treatment_in_catastrophic_pandemic/

One of my teachers (for my Holocaust class no less...talk about massive death ) showed this to the class today. A panel has decided (or rather, advised) the God-like task of deciding who will live and who will die in case of a major epidemic (they're saying the Flu) should hit. Here's the list of some of the people who they think shouldn't get care:

* People older than 85.
* Those with severe trauma, which could include critical injuries from car crashes and shootings.
* Severely burned patients older than 60.
* Those with severe mental impairment, which could include advanced Alzheimer's disease.
* Those with a severe chronic disease, such as advanced heart failure, lung disease or poorly controlled diabetes.
Personally, although it goes against every moral in the book of human nature, I believe it's necessary. While extremely hard to do within, we must play God in times of crisis where we simply can not get enough medical care to everyone if say 1/4th of the population in America got strucken with a deadly disease.

Your thoughts? Should we attempt to care for these people while risking the lives of healthy, young people? Or should we put the healthy/young people at a priority?
It's easy to say shit like that, when you and your family fit under the "Healthy" category. Not that I know anyone that fit the criteria above *touch wood*, but I'm just playing Devils Advocate or w/e

if i fell under those categories i'd gladly give up my right for medicine so that those with the best chance of survival could ensure the continuance of the human race or my nation or w/e.

2008-05-06 18:56:45

#25

Steel: on_Target; +65|6740|Sarasota Fl

Poseidon wrote:
Steel wrote:
theres an actual Holocaust class?
that seems odd,
does this last the school year or is it only a week or something?
The entire second semester. It's mainly based on Audio/Visual stuff. We're watching the Pianist this week, and Schindler's List next week. It's really only limited to our school.

I think that's cool, there's so many avenues teaching how to be tough but there seems to be a lack of sensitivity taught.

BF2S Forums In case of epidemic, break glass.

Poseidon wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Steel wrote:

Pubic wrote:

MAGUIRE93 wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Steel wrote:

Board footer