• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Healthcare: Human or Animal?

Healthcare: Human or Animal?

  • The animal should receive treatment

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    19

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,627
Reaction score
14,970
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
In response to the "Humans or Animals" thread I've decided to create a new poll with equal scenarios between a human and an animal. Here is the scenario:

There is a human (any age or gender) and an animal (any animal). Both are in critical need of medical care but only one can receive treatment. Both will die without the medical treatment, but there are only enough resources for one of them to receive it. Who gets the medical care? The human? The animal? Or are both lives equal and it should be up to a random drawing?

To clarify, it is a human medical doctor and a human veterinarian giving the care.
 
Last edited:
Most likely, it would be the human, simply because it is humans providing the care and it's natural to consider the welfare of those like you than those dislike you first. If it was a cat providing the care, you'd better be sure the cat would get the first nod.

Now, if you're asking which one SHOULD get the care, there just isn't enough information to have an informed answer.
 
Most likely, it would be the human, simply because it is humans providing the care and it's natural to consider the welfare of those like you than those dislike you first. If it was a cat providing the care, you'd better be sure the cat would get the first nod.

Now, if you're asking which one SHOULD get the care, there just isn't enough information to have an informed answer.

It is a human providing the care in both instances. I edited my OP to clarify. A human medical doctor would provide life saving care to another human, and a veterinarian would provide the care to the animal.
 
Human no doubt. Human life is more important.
 
Human. With NO hesitation.
 
It is a human providing the care in both instances. I edited my OP to clarify. A human medical doctor would provide life saving care to another human, and a veterinarian would provide the care to the animal.

If you have two doctors, it makes no sense for only one of the patients to be treated.
 
If you have two doctors, it makes no sense for only one of the patients to be treated.

:lamo @ how I didn't even think of that. Well technicalities aside, I think we all get the point... lol
 
If you have two doctors, it makes no sense for only one of the patients to be treated.
The life saving factor might be the availablity of a resource other than a doctor or vet; such as a drug. :doh

.
 
Last edited:
The human since he/she can pay for it. :D

Of course a human life is more important than an animal's, but I also think humans are usually in greater position to help themselves where an animal couldn't. For that reason and I believe in helping and protecting animals as much as humanly (pardon the pun) possible.
 
Last edited:
Backing slowly out of thread.....shhh...y'all never saw me.
 
I would need to know what the medical conditions actually are, and the completeness of recovery.

If we're talking about an elderly person with terminal cancer in the final stages vs. one of the last animals of a critically endangered species (i.e. bengal tigers), I would choose the animal without hesitation.

If we're talking about a critically ill human who could recover and live a productive life vs. an animal whose suffering would be needlessly prolonged, I would put the animal down.

I would also be in favor of euthanising the human if the situation is bad enough.

This poll is too black and white. "I don't know" or "other" should have been options. I therefore refuse to vote.

The human since he/she can pay for it. :D

He didn't say if the human is poor or has money, but good to know that you would refuse critical care based on one's ability to pay.
 
In response to the "Humans or Animals" thread I've decided to create a new poll with equal scenarios between a human and an animal. Here is the scenario:

There is a human (any age or gender) and an animal (any animal). Both are in critical need of medical care but only one can receive treatment. Both will die without the medical treatment, but there are only enough resources for one of them to receive it. Who gets the medical care? The human? The animal? Or are both lives equal and it should be up to a random drawing?

To clarify, it is a human medical doctor and a human veterinarian giving the care.

Depends. Are they likely to be permanently impaired in any way? If so, how so? How do the treatment options for the human vs. the animal compare in efficacy and suffering? What is the prognosis with treatment for the human vs. the animal? Also, humans value life differently from most other animals. We are very mental, whereas most other animals are much more kinesthetic. The things that make life worth living to us are different than they are for most other animals, and this has an impact on when and how much medical intervention is justified, in my opinion.

Not knowing any of those things, I'm unsure. I don't believe humans are inherently more valuable than everything else on earth. We just think we are because we're humans. While it does make sense to opt to help those like you first, on an evolutionary level, that does not speak to the ethics or meaning of making that choice. It's a very shallow justification, and it doesn't provide me with a good enough reason by itself to choose one way or the other.
 
Last edited:
If you have two doctors, it makes no sense for only one of the patients to be treated.

Notice I said recourses. And it's a hypothetical ethical question. Only one can live. Which one and why?
 
Notice I said recourses. And it's a hypothetical ethical question. Only one can live. Which one and why?

Then it depends on other factors. Who is it? What kind of animal? If it's Hitler vs. an endangered species, the human loses.
 
Remind me to have a sexy young gal spank xfactor. This post is a figment of his imagination.
 
Remind me to have a sexy young gal spank xfactor. This post is a figment of his imagination.

He's a real stinker, isn't he? :lol:
 
The human should receive treatment. Humans are more important than non-human animals.
 
Back
Top Bottom