If you have ethical qualms about this, I'd like to point out that ethics go both ways. It's unconscionable to take a hospital bed away from someone who needs it, because you refuse to take your medicine, with predictable consequences.
I do agree however. And, I think it's an ethically defensible position to not treat people who refuse to get vaccinated... even though it will never happen.
Will be put at the end of recipient lists, or outright denied for organ transplants if you're an active smoker of the last 6 months.
> uninsured people
Will only be stabilized in the ER and sent home - actual treatment is only to stabilize the patient to get them back out the door as-per law.
---
On motorcycles and obesity those are a bit harder to get into - but I will say that yes... for 2/4 of those we do actively deny medical treatment for better or worse. That makes me feel like we're already on the "slippery slope" - especially in regards to those without insurance... We literally have no problem denying life saving treatment to the uninsured here.
And hell - even as an ex-smoker I agree with the places that don't allow active smokers on their transplant lists. Ethically that makes perfect sense to me.
"Will only be stabilized in the ER"
In other words: they will be treated.
No one is saying we need to give the best treatments, or any kind of treatment that is scarce and competitive (like transplants) to unvaccinated people, but you're talking about refusing people any treatment and sending them out to die at home or on the streets. That's extremely cruel and certainly is not done anywhere in the US currently.
We're splitting hairs - I'm out.
You're advocating for sending unvaccinated people away with zero treatment. None of your examples are remotely comparable. If you were really discussing in good faith, you would admit it.
Right and that's why I'm out. I have made my arguments, and I don't appreciate you implying that I am discussing these things in bad-faith. If we disagree that is fine.
Respectfully, I am done discussing this with you.
They were wrong hospitals shouldn't treat unvaccinated patients. They were right withholding treatment someone needs to live months and withholding treatment someone needs to live days aren't 100% different.
I never made the claim that they shouldn't treat unvaccinated patients:
> And, I think it's an ethically defensible position to not treat people who refuse to get vaccinated... even though it will never happen.
And specifically to the parent comment I was agreeing to the following (quoting parent):
> It's unconscionable to take a hospital bed away from someone who needs it, because you refuse to take your medicine, with predictable consequences.
Although maybe it's not my best self showing here - but I do feel angry toward people taking those hospital beds away. And I was very specifically agreeing that "It's unconscionable to take a hospital bed away from someone who needs it [...]" I have friends/family who are suffering real consequences of hospitals being overrun with largely unvaccinated people...
---
Overall, I don't think "ethically defensible position" is equivalent to "they should not treat unvaccinated people" - yeah I guess this can be seen as "walking it back" but overall I did not mean to outright state we shouldn't treat the unvaccinated.
Sure - it comes from a place of frustration. But I don't think I'm alone in thinking about these things.
Sorry if this is off-base.
Thanks for clarifying. They also said "Drop the vaccine mandates, and drop the mandates to treat the unvaccinated." And you said "I do agree however." But I can believe you just meant the last sentence. Feeling frustrated is natural when your friends and family are harmed. I hope they can get what they need.
100% we need to treat people regardless of anyone's attitude (mine included), and 100% we need to continue to mandate vaccines.
Thank you again for giving me the space to clarify =)
Perhaps they should be able to opt out of both as a package deal?
No, just like how if I need surgery, and the hospital is full of anti-vaxxers with COVID, and I can't get treatment, I currently don't get my money back.
How would that work practically though? They still end up in the hospital, they're not going to test if they're vaxxed and put them at the end of the line if not.
This would be called "heartless" on the individual scale, but towards a group that I believe is being heartless on a societal scale.
Honestly, it's a capsule of where we are as a country: Here we have a government entity whose suggestions are rejected by these people still suggesting to prioritize them in order to get them the best treatment possible. I don't see anything like the same consideration for others being made by most of the unvaccinated. One side is trying to do what's best for everyone, the other side doesn't really give a shit about thinking things through.
If two do arrive at the same time, an unvaccinated person with far worse sickness faintly mumbling about ivermectin who waited until the last minute to come in, and a vaccinated person who is suffering but nowhere near the danger zone - do you put the unvaccinated person on the sidewalk outside?
What about smokers or fat people?
Long answer: you'd probably come up with a protocol around "ok, we have this ventilator available, give it to the unvaxed patient, but if we have other patients who end up needing one and they haven't improved in X hours/days, we will reallocate" and similar for all the various ways people can present, but "conveniently"... if the health system is that overloaded, you're gonna have ERs with a lot of patients all arriving at the same time.
Hell, even pre-COVID, I got stuck waiting in an ER in December for days because the hospital was full once.
(To your edit: has either smoking or obesity caused hospitals to fill to capacity and have to turn away patients? You'll notice here I'm talking about scarce medical resource allocation prioritization where they're actively competing with those more considerate of the rest of us, not something like insurance payments or coverage.)
Unfortunately as much as I agree with this it will never be the case. Hospitals are hurting for blood too - sucks. These spikes are largely unvaccinated folks from everything I'm reading. They're stressing the system but I guarantee you they don't care outside of their own selfishness.
Those who don't want to get vaccinated should take personal responsibility for that, not expect society to take as much care of them when they're choosing not to help take care of society (even in terms of "reducing burden on healthcare system by getting a likely-less-severe case", even if transmissibility isn't affected as much).