You can't expect those who are unvaccinated taking up beds (potentially or not) to think about ethics. For a good part of our country it's a race to the bottom of "I got mine, f u" and those folks seem largely represented in the group that's currently stressing our hospitals.

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.

If you open that door, should treatment also be denied to smokers, motorcycle riders, obese people, uninsured people, etc., etc.? It's about as slippery as a slope can get.

> denied to smokers

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.

Not getting a transplant isn't comparable to being denied a hospital bed.

"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.

Sorry - you brought these things up in regards to a slippery slope being denied treatment. I responded to you in good faith to say that half of those do have some sort of denial of treatment, specifically citing what is denied. I do not agree that stabilization of a patient is treating any underlying disease or cause.

We're splitting hairs - I'm out.

Splitting hairs? Which one of us is referring to various forms of medical treatment as "denying treatment"?

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.

> 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.

You’re trying to claim stabilizing someone in the ER isn’t medical treatment. You are transparently arguing in bad faith and you know it. But sure, take your ball and go home since you can’t defend your arguments.

Denying treatment can mean denying any treatment or denying all treatment. They meant the 1st. You meant the 2nd.

folkhack posted a comment advocating for the 2nd. That's what we're talking about.

I'm talking about you saying they claimed something they didn't. And accusing them of bad faith.

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.

First, thank you. I feel like this is an opportunity to clarify in a thread of rationality vs. getting accused of bad faith...

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.

> 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.

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.

Absolutely - and thanks for providing the communicative space to clarify myself. I didn't feel it was going to be productive trying to clarify to /u/danenania when bad-faith was being harshly implied. I agree I was not clear in my comment as to what I was agreeing with - but I felt like I was being pushed to a position that I had not intended to take.

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 =)

They’re 100% different in the sense that withholding treatment completely is not done in the US currently for any reason. We've drawn a line there as a society.

I think all of us understand the present US law. Most Americans say everyone should have access to national insurance actually. And legality and popularity don't settle ethical questions.

Will all of these people get their health tax and insurance money back when they are denied?

Perhaps they should be able to opt out of both as a package deal?

> Will all of these people get their health tax and insurance money back when they are denied?

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.