• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Biased or Just?

ysabel

/ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5
Scenario: You're a doc. Mass shooting happened, lots of people admitted in your hospital, resources not enough and there's a need to pick and prioritise patients. But how?

Patient One - very critical condition, needs lots of serious surgery asap

Patient Two - very critical condition, needs surgery but not as intensive as patient one

1. Would you prioritise patient one because of his condition? Or treat both patients with same urgency?


Oh but here's the kicker: you find out that patient one was the shooter that caused all the injuries of patients currently in the ER and operating room, and patient two was the police officer that managed to stop the shooter from having more victims.

2. Would your patient care be affected by this information (willingness to save or prioritising patients)?

3. Would you prioritise patient 2 over patient 1 because of the hero status over killer status?

4. And if someone chooses to prioritise patient 2 because of this information, would you think it's an unprofessional and biased act or would you think it's justifiable given the circumstances?
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
Not to be a dork, but that's what triage is for. The docs and nurses don't make decisions about whom to treat in what order. :dork:

That said, I'd treat patient 2 first based on the given information.
 

ysabel

/ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5
Oh it was based on a tv show I watched and they're surgeons who need to make calls as to which patient gets this and that. Some nurses and docs walked out of the operating room once they found out they were trying to save the shooter and preferred to use their services on victims or the hero cop. :dork:
------
omg we used the same smiley :hah:
 
Last edited:

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
I was going to say what Jeanie said, that is what triage is for.

Based on the facts I think patient 1 should be treated first. A doctor's job is to heal, not to pass judgment on who deserves to live or die.

EDIT: I had worded by second sentence incorrectly.
 
Last edited:

Wade8813

Registered Member
For me, it depends on the specifics of the situation.

Since in this case, both are in desperate need of care, I think I'd help the hero rather than the criminal. But if the criminal was in desperate need and the hero was only sort of in need, then I'd help the criminal.

Although I don't think I'd walk out of the OR. That's just cold.
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
For me, it depends on the specifics of the situation.

Since in this case, both are in desperate need of care, I think I'd help the hero rather than the criminal. But if the criminal was in desperate need and the hero was only sort of in need, then I'd help the criminal.

Although I don't think I'd walk out of the OR. That's just cold.
I'm not sure, but I would guess that's not only cold but it would violate some ethical standard.
 

ysabel

/ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5
I was going to say what Jeanie said, that is what triage is for.

Based on the facts I think patient 1 should be treated first. A doctor's job is to heal, not to pass judgment on who deserves to live or die.

EDIT: I had worded by second sentence incorrectly.
Well, in deciding to offer the service to the second patient (also in critical condition), the doctor is still doing his job to heal.

I'm not sure, but I would guess that's not only cold but it would violate some ethical standard.
Yeah I thought of ethics in this case (but it's a tv show so maybe those technicalities weren't important). The thing is in the show scenario, when they were trying to save both patients, they didn't know their identities yet but then the Chief later informed them which is which and I sort of wondered if it was ethical of him to say that in the first place, and then the question of how the medical staff were given "understood" when they refused to continue assisting in the operation of patient 1 to help out with other patients like patient 2 instead. (Of course there's this whole side story about how these medical staff were also victims of mass shooting just a few months ago so perhaps that played in the consideration given them).
 

Dabs

Registered Member
I would think most people would think the hero should be top priority, but both would most likely be taken care of at the same time, if plenty of nurses and doctors are on hand.
That is rather rude to walk out of the room, what if that person had died??
As a normal citizen, I can see how people would expect the hero to be tended to first, but as doctors, they are trained, and should know to treat people in accordance to their injuries.
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
I'm not sure, but I would guess that's not only cold but it would violate some ethical standard.
It would definitely violate the Hippocratic Oath. "I will apply... all measures that are required... Above all I must not play God"

As to whether it violates an ethical standard, it depends on what ethical theory you subscribe to. It violates Kantian ethics, but not Utilitarianism.

As ysabel said, choosing to treat patient 2 first is still doing your duty as a physician. Then once patient 2 is stable, move on to patient 1.

But again, this scenario is hardly likely to happen in real life. Triage prioritizes treatment.
 

Smelnick

Creeping On You
V.I.P.
I treat life the same no matter what said life has done. If the shooter has more serious injuries, I'd take care of him regardless of him being the cause of the other person's injuries.

Although, realistically, if two patients are deemed to be pretty close in severity, don't they get a second doctor in? Hmm, hypothetical question though...okay ignore my musings hahhah.
 
Top