• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Your Dog and a Stranger Are Drowning-Which Do You Save?

Serenity said:
You have two kids and they are involved in an accident. Ones 4 and ones 15. They are both at risk of dying. Going by your idiotic logic the 15 year old isn't worth saving.
Click to expand...

The brutal truth is that if the chances of saving one or the other were perfectly equal, it is about maximizing potentiality. It is not a question of whether or not they are worth saving, of course they are worth saving. Bringing it back to the old person vs. younger dilemma, the youth has more potentiality. They have yet to have the same opportunity to live their life, to create and enjoy a family, to make an impact on others, they have not had the same opportunity to experience life that the elder has. It sucks, but such is the nature of dilemmas such as these.
 
What if the stranger, a woman, was pregnant?
 
marduc said:
The brutal truth is that if the chances of saving one or the other were perfectly equal, it is about maximizing potentiality. It is not a question of whether or not they are worth saving, of course they are worth saving. Bringing it back to the old person vs. younger dilemma, the youth has more potentiality. They have yet to have the same opportunity to live their life, to create and enjoy a family, to make an impact on others, they have not had the same opportunity to experience life that the elder has. It sucks, but such is the nature of dilemmas such as these.
Click to expand...

I obviously disagree. If i honestly held any of those views (which i clearly don't) and expressed them in my work enviroment i would be dismissed. And rightfully so.

Interesting conversation nonetheless. I admit i am shocked though that it would appear that there are people who would be ok with paramedics making judgement calls on whose life they should attempt to save if the need arises in a critical situation.
 
Serenity said:
It's not a Paramedics job to play God and any that feel it is shouldn't be working as one. Now that doesn't mean that i don't go home some days a mess because i've been involved in administering care to someone who may have caused an accident where they live and others die (just to use one example) and i'm not going to pretend it doesn't affect me because it does, sometimes it ****s me up big time but i deal with that after. When you are involved in a scene you cannot make judgements Ever.
Click to expand...
I'm quite sure that you do make judgments. Who can you save and who is too far gone? If it was up to God, you'd stand there let him sort it out. In this case, by trying to save lives, you are playing god and we pay you do so.
 
Serenity said:
I obviously disagree. If i honestly held any of those views (which i clearly don't) and expressed them in my work enviroment i would be dismissed. And rightfully so.

Interesting conversation nonetheless. I admit i am shocked though that it would appear that there are people who would be ok with paramedics making judgement calls on whose life they should attempt to save if the need arises in a critical situation.
Click to expand...

So how would you pick in this hypothetical case without making a judgement call? Only one person can be saved, and the chances of saving one or the other are equal. A choice must be made inaction results in them both dying.

coin flip?
 
Serenity said:
Interesting conversation nonetheless. I admit i am shocked though that it would appear that there are people who would be ok with paramedics making judgement calls on whose life they should attempt to save if the need arises in a critical situation.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with paramedics making judgement calls, as there are situations where they are required to, by the nature of the job. We all work and make choices which are determined by our nature as humans, and we are all different in how individual nature determines those choices.
 
JayDubya said:
My dog's a strong swimmer, thankfully, so I need not lose him to such a scenario were it to present itself.

To analyze your dilemma on its own merits, however:

It is not morally obligatory to save anyone and risk drowning yourself.
It is morally permissible to save either.


All other things being equal, I know it's the right thing to do to save the human I don't know. But I'd be highly tempted in the moment to save my dog.



* * *

Oh wait, I forgot, I have two dogs. The newer one of them has pooped on my floor enough that the flood can take him. :p
Click to expand...

I'm with you on the entirety of your post, but most especially the bolded. Having two and the newer one is driving me to distraction with potty training. LOL

It would be incredibly difficult for me to choose. I know what's right, on a human level, but my dogs... Saving my very loyal buddies, would seem right too.
 
lizzie said:
I have no problem with paramedics making judgement calls, as there are situations where they are required to, by the nature of the job. We all work and make choices which are determined by our nature as humans, and we are all different in how individual nature determines those choices.
Click to expand...

Would you be ok with a paramedic making a judgement call specifically relating to the age of the patient, because that is what this discussion has degenerated into?
 
Serenity said:
Would you be ok with a paramedic making a judgement call specifically relating to the age of the patient, because that is what this discussion has degenerated into?
Click to expand...
It's not based on age. If you tell me that you, because you are alone, can save only one person from a two-car accident, and one is a teenage girl, and one is 40-year-old man, and you save the girl because you can only save one, then you have made the correct decision. It would be the same if it was a teenage girl and teenage boy, and you let him die. Saving the girl in this case is the better choice, the only truly rational choice.
 
Serenity said:
Would you be ok with a paramedic making a judgement call specifically relating to the age of the patient which is what this discussion has degenerated into?
Click to expand...

I don't think it would boil down to that in the first place. Medical emergency personnel are trained to respond according to triage priorities, and they don't typically have firsthand knowledge of the individuals they are working with. That being said, I don't agree that age is the primary determining factor in choosing whom to save anyway. If, otoh, the choice did come down to that, I don't have a problem with it, because in a case like that, everything depends on the subjective reasoning of those who are in the life-saving position. I don't place more value on the life of a young person than I do an elderly person, so that would not be how I would make my personal choice. Choices like this are unexpected and spur-of-the-moment, and I don't make a moral judgement on how an individual responds.

We all perform according to our past experience and training. This reminds me of the night/morning that my husband died. He had to be transported from the local hospital to another one that had a heart cath lab. When the paramedics transported him to the other hospital, I was a little ticked off that they didn't take him with lights and sirens, at a relatively high rate of speed, because it was my husband, and I loved him. I didn't think they were taking his case seriously enough. When they did get him to the other hospital, his condition was deteriorating, but he was still lucid and was not confused, although they could not get a blood pressure on him. Looking at his mental status, they probably thought it was safe not to get into emergency mode. He died about an hour and a half after arriving at the other hospital, when he was in the CT room to rule out a dissecting aorta. I asked myself over and over if the paramedics were negligent in not treating his case more emergently, and I came to the conclusion that they were acting according to what they could see, and according to how they had been trained.
 
Last edited:
Serenity said:
You contribute nothing to my salary.

Glad we cleared that up.
Click to expand...

I suspect that I do. I pay taxes (Medicaid, Medicare, local fire, etc.), for paramedics when I've used them, and for health insurance, all of which could pay for your services. Regardless of my personal contribution, society pays to have you around and to make life and death decisions in the field. That is playing god and that's entirely expected. Decisions must be made.
 
TiredOfLife said:
It's not based on age. If you tell me that you, because you are alone, can save only one person from a two-car accident, and one is a teenage girl, and one is 40-year-old man, and you save the girl because you can only save one, then you have made the correct decision. It would be the same if it was a teenage girl and teenage boy, and you let him die. Saving the girl in this case is the better choice, the only truly rational choice.
Click to expand...

Truly rational choice for you maybe, not for me, but that's ok, each to their own.


TiredOfLife said:
I suspect that I do. I pay taxes (Medicaid, Medicare, local fire, etc.), for paramedics when I've used them, and for health insurance, all of which could pay for your services. Regardless of my personal contribution, society pays to have you around and to make life and death decisions in the field. That is playing god and that's entirely expected. Decisions must be made.
Click to expand...

Unless you live in Australia and pay taxes you don't contribute anything to my salary.
 
Serenity said:
Unless you live in Australia and pay taxes you don't contribute anything to my salary.
Click to expand...
Ah, now that's a good point. In that case, you are correct, until I make it there for a time which I expect to at some point still.
 
Serenity said:
Truly rational choice for you maybe, not for me, but that's ok, each to their own.
Click to expand...

I already asked this, but how would you choose? Even further I am starting to wonder if you would be able to choose or be frozen in indecision. A choice must be made or both die, there is an equal chance of saving either, but no chance of saving both.
 
Serenity said:
You contribute nothing to my salary.

Glad we cleared that up.
Click to expand...



Not to stir crap up or anything... but I took an ambulance ride a couple years ago and it cost me a $500 co-pay.... so I'm thinking I contributed to SOME paramedic's salary! :mrgreen:
 
Goshin said:
Not to stir crap up or anything... but I took an ambulance ride a couple years ago and it cost me a $500 co-pay.... so I'm thinking I contributed to SOME paramedic's salary! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
You got off cheap. Mine was double that.
 
Goshin said:
Not to stir crap up or anything... but I took an ambulance ride a couple years ago and it cost me a $500 co-pay.... so I'm thinking I contributed to SOME paramedic's salary! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

$31.50 per year will get you 100% Ambulance Cover for a year here for unlimited emergency ambulance trips including air services and on-the-spot treatment Australia wide. Double that for a family.
 
Serenity said:
$31.50 per year will get you 100% Ambulance Cover for a year here for unlimited emergency ambulance trips including air services and on-the-spot treatment Australia wide. Double that for a family.
Click to expand...


Well, dayum... I knew our healthcare costs have gotten crazy...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom