DROP everything and check this out!!!
Sharon Molloy
Also posted to asc regular...
Okay folks, they're asking for it, so here's our chance to give it to 'em.
The Toronto Globe and Mail has a weekly feature in its Review section
which poses an ethical dilemma and invites readers to give their responses
at eth...@globeandmail.ca
This was today's. We don't have computer access at work so I charged home
at lunchtime in the pouring rain to post this:
A reader asks:
"During a two-day first-aid course, the question came up of what to do in
a situation where you have more victims than helpers. One of the tips
given was to help children before adults.
[Now THAT'S a two cent tip...]
Asked if that was because children are more likely to survive, we were
told that we are [hold onto your craniums here] ethically bound to help
children first.
[Here is what sent my brain, already through the ceiling AND the roof,
clear into orbit. Th only counterpoint the writer could come up with for
that was...]
But what about adults who may have children at home who need them? Should
children be helped first?"
[&^%*^$*&^*&AAAAAAAAAAAAAAI swear to fuck, chiiiildruuun safe at home, and
hypothetical to boot, matter more to this GONAD than a bleeding injured
adult right in front of him/her. If anyone could be refused a first aid
certificate like they refuse doctor's licences, it's this diaperhead.]
Pant, pant, wheeeze, short breath in, loooong breaaaath ooooout, okay.
That's better.
Once I was able to see straight, I composed this:
The truly ethical response in this situation is to first help those MOST
SERIOUSLY injured... regardless of age. Of course it's perfectly ethical
to attend someone with a broken limb before someone with say, a skinned
knee. The many things adults can do for themselves move outside their
ability after serious injury.
And why should anybody have to provide the "correct" answer to a question
like "Before I begin, who do you have at home?" in order to immediately
qualify for urgently needed first aid?
That address again is eth...@globeandmail.ca
Just please let's don't feed the stereotypes.
I'll post the results next week... unless my head irretrieveably
explodes.
Help keep Sharon's brain from exploding! Give 'em a piece of your mind!
_/\/\_
Sharon
"Children are gifts from Gawd!"
Then God's really into gag gifts.
Douglas Henke
> [ first aid triage scenario ]
> Asked if that was because children are more likely to survive, we were
> told that we are [hold onto your craniums here] ethically bound to help
> children first.
That's an emotional[1] decision, not a rational or ethical one. Both
rationally (i.e. from the standpoint of pure cost/benefit analysis)
and ethically ("good of the many") you must clearly attend to the
adult first, all else being equal.
Justification: Society has already paid the bulk of the costs
associated with the adult (years of upbringing and training for a
sprog who consumes but does not produce). Let him die, and you lose
the return on that investment.
Let the sprog bleed out. Easier to replace. Less wastage of up-front
costs already paid. Less collateral damage to other people who depend
on what the adult produces.
[1]-- For brood-sow values of "emotional"; I imagine most readers
here feel rather differently.
--
Mail to henke at insync dot net.