If an object or process is scarce, who should get it?
Immortalist
large hospital to which many patients came for treatment of kidney
failure. Unfortunately, the number of patients far exceeded the number
of spaces available on kidney-dialysis machines. Yet without access to
the machines, many patients surely would die. Other hospitals had the
same problem so the overload could not be sent elsewhere.
Physicians and hospital administrators agreed that some procedure was
needed for determining who would have access to the machines. Since,
as individuals, the staff did not agree on who should and who should
not be treated, no one would have been treated unless such a procedure
was instituted. It was often agreed that a panel consisting of
physicians, administrators, nurses, and representatives of the general
public make the decisions and that all decisions of this committee
would be authoritative.
Suppose under this procedure, a certain patient, A, comes up for
treatment. A would not have needed treatment at this time had he but
followed his doctor's orders about diet and medication. Because of his
own negligence, he did not obey instructions and so needs treatment
now. He is a prominent research scientist whose work, if carried to
fruition, may be of great benefit to humanity.
However, a second person, B, also needs immediate treatment.
Unfortunately, there is space for only one more patient on the
machine. B, whose work is of no special benefit to others, needs
treatment now only because he obeyed his physician's instructions so
faithfully. By being so careful, he postponed the time when he would
need dialysis as long as possible, thereby freeing the machine for use
by others. The problem facing the committee is whether A or B should
receive treatment.
The committee decides that A should receive treatment, because of the
great value of his research for humanity. However, those directly
involved in administering dialysis treatment regard the decision as
grossly unfair. The committee responds to their protest by pointing
out that, by common agreement, it and it alone has the authority to
make the decision. The protestors reply that their consciences will
not allow them to carry out the decision.
This case is a paradigm illustration of how the claims of authority
can conflict with those of individual conscience and judgment. One
issue raised by the case is, of course, that of whether the dialysis
committee made the right decision. The issue of present concern,
however, is somewhat different. It is the issue of whether it is
possible to acknowledge the claims of political authority and the
claims of individual conscience and autonomy as well.
The Individual & the Poliical Order
An Introduction to Social & Political Philosophy
-Norman E. Bowie & Robert L. Simon
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0847687805/
ZerkonXXXX
> The issue of present concern,
> however, is somewhat different. It is the issue of whether it is
> possible to acknowledge the claims of political authority and the claims
> of individual conscience and autonomy as well.
A moral dilemma, like this one, demands a fixed instance is analogous for
an entire on going system. It's constructive but only up to a point. 'A'
is cozy here but what if 'A' was an ad exec for Big Bacon Cheese Burger
Inc. who also happened to have donated a hospital wing?
The final question though can be answered with the simple "where there is
a will there is a way". If human need spawns a human will to meet need,
better ways or better directions will be found. GIVEN humans are directly
involved with each other.
The essential moral dilemma seems to be this: Human health and human
money. Each have become 'systems' at odds with each other. The systems
have become nonhuman. Corporation and government bureaucracy trend away
from human-ness irregardless of intention.
hal
conservatives will tell you that goods and services should be rationed
only to those with the most money. Everybody else should just suffer
and die quietly.
tg
While at the same time droning on about merit.
If you inherit a million dollars, you are automatically a highly
productive member of society. You are also better able to 'pick
winners and losers in the marketplace' than anyone, of whatever
training and experience, who has a job working for the government.
sigh
-tg
AZDuffman
The answer to the dilema is let the hospitals work as for-profit.
That way they will buy enough machines and you don't get problems like
this.
But if you wonder what Obamacare will be like, this is indeed a good
stroy.
AZDuffman
Liberals would base who gets treatment on gender and skin color. And
if they can't pay while someone else can why we just raise taxes to
cover it.
John Stafford
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 15:45:50 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
> <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Consider, for example, the problem which at one time faced the kind of
> >large hospital to which many patients came for treatment of kidney
> >failure. Unfortunately, the number of patients far exceeded the number
> >of spaces available on kidney-dialysis machines. Yet without access to
> >the machines, many patients surely would die. Other hospitals had the
> >same problem so the overload could not be sent elsewhere.
That still happens today. If you don't have enough insurance, then they
consider your career, your age, your habits and then decide how much, if
anything, they will do for you.
Jerry Okamura
is, what system will provide more of these "machines", and what system will
result in having less of these "machines".
"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c002076e-b978-4786...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
ZerkonXXXX
> The answer to the dilema is let the hospitals work as for-profit.
By making a profit off of illness and suffering, both become economic
desirable. Health becomes a economic threat.
Rod Speed
> AZDuffman wrote
>> The answer to the dilema is let the hospitals work as for-profit.
> By making a profit off of illness and suffering, both become
> economic desirable. Health becomes a economic threat.
Not in the real world where that would never be allowed to happen.
tooly
>
No, conservatives only argue that natural workings of free markets
yeild far better outcomes time and again over the meddling of do-
gooder humans.
It's not perfect, but neither is the committee overseeing outcomes.
Whenever people try to play the role of God, it gets us all in
trouble. We have to ask why it is that some people rise to the top of
the pyramid to have certain means over others that might give them the
advantage to have the procedure [whatever it is] before someone else
[citizen B]. We could try and set up programming to give remedy
'before' the fact [controls], but that means subjectivity by those
creating the program...and BIAS in some form or fashion which probably
winds up eventually skewing our subjective reality out of alignment
with objective reality, creating need for corrections in time [social
upheavals, revolutions, reform, that kind of thing].
Macro solutions do not always satisfy on the micro level, but one has
to see the big picture as the more responsible oversight.
zzbunker
> Consider, for example, the problem which at one time faced the kind of
> large hospital to which many patients came for treatment of kidney
> failure. Unfortunately, the number of patients far exceeded the number
> of spaces available on kidney-dialysis machines. Yet without access to
> the machines, many patients surely would die. Other hospitals had the
> same problem so the overload could not be sent elsewhere.
>
> Physicians and hospital administrators agreed that some procedure was
> needed for determining who would have access to the machines.
Well, Hospistals have always done that, but since the only thing
most of the
jerks know about machines of any kind is patents, that's why
people with post Hippocrates brains invented self-replicating
machines,
rather than Libraries anyway. And invented AI, rather than
dialysis,
invented helicopters rather than tombstones, invented self-
assembling robots
rather than Dentists and invented atomic clock wristwatches,
holograms, and nanotech rather than Lawyers.
tooly
wrote:
> The question is not whether there will be enough "machines", the question
> is, what system will provide more of these "machines", and what system will
> result in having less of these "machines".
>
>
> news:c002076e-b978-4786...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
Exactly...the 'bigger picture'.
Rod Speed
> hal wrote
>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
> No, conservatives only argue that natural workings of free markets yeild far
> better outcomes time and again over the meddling of do-gooder humans.
There are no free markets, its pure fantasy.
> It's not perfect, but neither is the committee overseeing outcomes.
So you havent established any reason why the approach you prefer is better.
> Whenever people try to play the role of God, it gets us all in trouble.
No one is playing the role of god.
> We have to ask why it is that some people rise to the top of the pyramid
> to have certain means over others that might give them the advantage to
> have the procedure [whatever it is] before someone else [citizen B].
They dont with medicare.
> We could try and set up programming to give remedy 'before' the fact [controls],
Not even possible.
> but that means subjectivity by those creating the program...
Nope.
> and BIAS in some form or fashion which probably winds up eventually skewing
> our subjective reality out of alignment with objective reality, creating need for
> corrections in time [social upheavals, revolutions, reform, that kind of thing].
The great democracys have worked out very effective ways of avoiding those.
> Macro solutions do not always satisfy on the micro level, but one
> has to see the big picture as the more responsible oversight.
Waffle.
Coffee's For Closers
For-profit health card isn't going to attack a healthy-living
person like me, and try to make me get sick.
There is, and always will be, a sufficient supply of people who
make themselves sick. Thereby providing the health card business
with plenty of customers.
OTOH, Big Pharma certainly does want to convince me, and everyone
else, that we are already sick, and need daily doses of expensive
medications, forever. And, if there is obviously nothing wrong
physically, they will insist that normal human emotions are
pathological, and that we all need anti-depressants. Cha-Ching!
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
tooly
I realize this gets into darwinist thinking, but consider that all
species, including humans, OVERPRODUCE. If we operate on a
utilitarian system, where the greatest NEED gets the next resource
allocated [ie need equated to utility], then it may result in a system
forever attending to the 'needs' of the most impoverished, who might
otherwise have been 'naturally selected' for...well...'not success'.
I know in business, companies have an obligation to stay competitive
by recognizing not only the talents that may be promoted to do that
company most good, but also to recognize the deadweight
underperformers so they can be replaced.
Equal distribution can probably only work with non-scarce renewable
resources...like water. Otherwise we perhaps circumvent nature's
ability to cull the herds properly.
Just a thought.
Rod Speed
Humans dont in the first world anymore.
Not one modern first world county is even self replacing on population now if you take out immigration.
> If we operate on a utilitarian system, where the greatest
> NEED gets the next resource allocated [ie need equated
> to utility], then it may result in a system forever attending to
> the 'needs' of the most impoverished, who might otherwise
> have been 'naturally selected' for...well...'not success'.
Unlikely, no society works like that, its not even possible.
> I know in business, companies have an obligation to stay
> competitive by recognizing not only the talents that may be
> promoted to do that company most good, but also to recognize
> the deadweight underperformers so they can be replaced.
> Equal distribution can probably only work with non-scarce
> renewable resources...like water. Otherwise we perhaps
> circumvent nature's ability to cull the herds properly.
Humans havent had that for a hell of a long time now.
> Just a thought.
More of a steaming turd.
Les Cargill
>
> I realize this gets into darwinist thinking, but consider that all
> species, including humans, OVERPRODUCE. If we operate on a
> utilitarian system, where the greatest NEED gets the next resource
> allocated [ie need equated to utility], then it may result in a system
> forever attending to the 'needs' of the most impoverished, who might
> otherwise have been 'naturally selected' for...well...'not success'.
We're not an element of Darwinian selection. We can do whatever we want
to do.
> I know in business, companies have an obligation to stay competitive
> by recognizing not only the talents that may be promoted to do that
> company most good, but also to recognize the deadweight
> underperformers so they can be replaced.
>
No organization above the size of a village ( < 150
people) can identify performers or underperformers.
What will happen is that people will *stop* performing
to game the system. Even small teams will make
huge mistakes based on clique dynamics.
This is a corollary of Jerry Pournelle's Iron Law. It's
also the reason that the pseudo-Social-Darwinist "slough
off the worst 5%" policy of GE greatly contributed to its
continuing demise.
> Equal distribution can probably only work with non-scarce renewable
> resources...like water. Otherwise we perhaps circumvent nature's
> ability to cull the herds properly.
> Just a thought.
We're not an element of Darwinian selection. We can do whatever we want
to do.
--
Les Cargill
Strabo
> tooly wrote:
>
>>
>> I realize this gets into darwinist thinking, but consider that all
>> species, including humans, OVERPRODUCE. If we operate on a
>> utilitarian system, where the greatest NEED gets the next resource
>> allocated [ie need equated to utility], then it may result in a system
>> forever attending to the 'needs' of the most impoverished, who might
>> otherwise have been 'naturally selected' for...well...'not success'.
>
> We're not an element of Darwinian selection. We can do whatever we want
> to do.
>
Fly?
>
>> I know in business, companies have an obligation to stay competitive
>> by recognizing not only the talents that may be promoted to do that
>> company most good, but also to recognize the deadweight
>> underperformers so they can be replaced.
>>
>
> No organization above the size of a village ( < 150
> people) can identify performers or underperformers.
> What will happen is that people will *stop* performing
> to game the system. Even small teams will make
> huge mistakes based on clique dynamics.
>
Thus the village idiot syndrome.
>
> This is a corollary of Jerry Pournelle's Iron Law. It's
> also the reason that the pseudo-Social-Darwinist "slough
> off the worst 5%" policy of GE greatly contributed to its
> continuing demise.
>
>> Equal distribution can probably only work with non-scarce renewable
>> resources...like water. Otherwise we perhaps circumvent nature's
>> ability to cull the herds properly.
>> Just a thought.
>
>
> We're not an element of Darwinian selection. We can do whatever we want
> to do.
>
Then you can fly!
>
> Les Cargill
Les Cargill
> Les Cargill wrote:
>> tooly wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I realize this gets into darwinist thinking, but consider that all
>>> species, including humans, OVERPRODUCE. If we operate on a
>>> utilitarian system, where the greatest NEED gets the next resource
>>> allocated [ie need equated to utility], then it may result in a system
>>> forever attending to the 'needs' of the most impoverished, who might
>>> otherwise have been 'naturally selected' for...well...'not success'.
>>
>> We're not an element of Darwinian selection. We can do whatever we
>> want to do.
>>
>
> Fly?
>
Yep. I'll be doing that next month.
> >
>>> I know in business, companies have an obligation to stay competitive
>>> by recognizing not only the talents that may be promoted to do that
>>> company most good, but also to recognize the deadweight
>>> underperformers so they can be replaced.
>>>
>>
>> No organization above the size of a village ( < 150
>> people) can identify performers or underperformers.
>> What will happen is that people will *stop* performing
>> to game the system. Even small teams will make
>> huge mistakes based on clique dynamics.
>>
>
> Thus the village idiot syndrome.
>
Village as idiot? Kinda like the Johnsons in "Blazing Saddles"?
> >
>> This is a corollary of Jerry Pournelle's Iron Law. It's
>> also the reason that the pseudo-Social-Darwinist "slough
>> off the worst 5%" policy of GE greatly contributed to its
>> continuing demise.
>>
>>> Equal distribution can probably only work with non-scarce renewable
>>> resources...like water. Otherwise we perhaps circumvent nature's
>>> ability to cull the herds properly.
>>> Just a thought.
>>
>>
>> We're not an element of Darwinian selection. We can do whatever we
>> want to do.
>>
>
> Then you can fly!
>
Why, yes, yes, I can! Check *this out! We have machines for that
now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_history
>
>>
>> Les Cargill
--
Les Cargill