|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on May 8, 2008 0:01:14 GMT -5
Who Should Not Be Saved in a Pandemic?By LINDSEY TANNER,AP Posted: 2008-05-05 13:28:17 Filed Under: Health News CHICAGO (May 5) - Doctors know some patients needing lifesaving care won't get it in a flu pandemic or other disaster. The gut-wrenching dilemma will be deciding who to let die. Now, an influential group of physicians has drafted a grimly specific list of recommendations for which patients wouldn't be treated. They include the very elderly, seriously hurt trauma victims, severely burned patients and those with severe dementia. ------- What do you think about the list on who wouldn't be treated during a pandemic or other disaster? It seems reasonable 54% It seems flawed 32% Not sure 14%
Total Votes: 53,317
------ Does anyone in your family fall into the categories of patients who wouldn't get treatment? Yes 70% No 30%
Total Votes: 49,727 ------ The suggested list was compiled by a task force whose members come from prestigious universities, medical groups, the military and government agencies. They include the Department of Homeland Security, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services. The proposed guidelines are designed to be a blueprint for hospitals "so that everybody will be thinking in the same way" when pandemic flu or another widespread health care disaster hits, said Dr. Asha Devereaux. She is a critical care specialist in San Diego and lead writer of the task force report. The idea is to try to make sure that scarce resources - including ventilators, medicine and doctors and nurses - are used in a uniform, objective way, task force members said. Their recommendations appear in a report appearing Monday in the May edition of Chest, the medical journal of the American College of Chest Physicians. "If a mass casualty critical care event were to occur tomorrow, many people with clinical conditions that are survivable under usual health care system conditions may have to forgo life-sustaining interventions owing to deficiencies in supply or staffing," the report states. To prepare, hospitals should designate a triage team with the Godlike task of deciding who will and who won't get lifesaving care, the task force wrote. Those out of luck are the people at high risk of death and a slim chance of long-term survival. But the recommendations get much more specific, and include: -- People older than 85.
-- Those with severe trauma, which could include critical injuries from car crashes and shootings.
-- Severely burned patients older than 60.
-- Those with severe mental impairment, which could include advanced Alzheimer's disease.
-- Those with a severe chronic disease, such as advanced heart failure, lung disease or poorly controlled diabetes.Dr. Kevin Yeskey, director of the preparedness and emergency operations office at the Department of Health and Human Services, was on the task force. He said the report would be among many the agency reviews as part of preparedness efforts. Public health law expert Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown University called the report an important initiative but also "a political minefield and a legal minefield." The recommendations would probably violate federal laws against age discrimination and disability discrimination, said Gostin, who was not on the task force. If followed to a tee, such rules could exclude care for the poorest, most disadvantaged citizens who suffer disproportionately from chronic disease and disability, he said. While health care rationing will be necessary in a mass disaster, "there are some real ethical concerns here." James Bentley, a senior vice president at American Hospital Association, said the report will give guidance to hospitals in shaping their own preparedness plans even if they don't follow all the suggestions. He said the proposals resemble a battlefield approach in which limited health care resources are reserved for those most likely to survive. Bentley said it's not the first time this type of approach has been recommended for a catastrophic pandemic, but that "this is the most detailed one I have seen from a professional group." While the notion of rationing health care is unpleasant, the report could help the public understand that it will be necessary, Bentley said. Devereaux said compiling the list "was emotionally difficult for everyone." That's partly because members believe it's just a matter of time before such a health care disaster hits, she said. "You never know," Devereaux said. "SARS took a lot of folks by surprise. We didn't even know it existed." news.aol.com/health/
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on May 8, 2008 0:04:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Niklianos on May 8, 2008 1:55:02 GMT -5
I believe the criteria for what constitutes a Mega Disaster and what would be the outcome of such a disaster?
We used to play this game in school. We would act like the class were the last people on earth and we would have to decide who dies and who stays. We would all be first given a false persona.
The ones who died were always the elderly, the sick, those with mental disabilities, those who were sterile, etc. The ones who would survive were the doctors, teachers, engineers and all those young enough and healthy enough to produce offspring and provide protection.
|
|
|
Post by Niklianos on May 8, 2008 1:56:57 GMT -5
But if it came down to the survival of our species I would have to agree with the list. It comes down to the Survival of The Fittest. It's not pretty and no one ever hopes it comes down to it, but in down to pure survival the decision will have to be made.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on May 8, 2008 12:17:29 GMT -5
_________________ AAdmin: I was clear about the rules I think!
|
|
|
Post by Arxileas on May 10, 2008 5:35:52 GMT -5
Undecided. It'll be the survival of the fittest, each man to them self's, even relatives aren't safe. You'll be surprised what humans are capable of in order to survive !!!
So I'll leave it to the survival of the fittest. You'll also be surprised what a 70 year older is capable of, when faced with survival decisions...Don't judge people by age or other.
.
|
|
|
Post by greek1234 on May 10, 2008 9:18:05 GMT -5
Yeah, but we have to think about the future... Would you save your life but leave your son behind? We cannot allow Anarchism to run wild, it should be done civilized like.
|
|
|
Post by Arxileas on May 10, 2008 9:37:15 GMT -5
Yeah, but we have to think about the future... Would you save your life but leave your son behind? We cannot allow Anarchism to run wild, it should done civilized like. Good point. Then again when it comes to a "Mega Disaster" no one knows what can happen in regards to Anarchy, sure one would look after their off spring in order to propagate the species to ensure its survival. When I mentioned relatives, I wasn’t referring to our children. I should have made it clearer on that "my error" if that's what you're refering to ?. I was refering to other relatives other then our off spring "our own children" Protecting our children is part of this survival instict in us and it's very strong in humans as well as the animal kingdom. IMO we've become so complacent that we've forgotten how to survive without the luxuries and comforts we've created for our self's. .
|
|
|
Post by vanilo on May 10, 2008 10:09:07 GMT -5
Good thread . Unfortunately, it's impossible for me to answer the question because...you really can't without having a more descriptive picture of every single person in the survey. I wouldn't say I'm appalled by this survey. Not at all, actually. I believe that in practice, as bad as it sounds...there's just no way that everyone can be "saved" or helped...and that choosing is a necessity. Unfortunately . Right now I'm doing some clinical practice at a psychiatric hospital and...I've REALLY gotten the idea of just how much doctors and other medical staff have to make these sort of choices. It's a huge part of their job, really. I'm not looking forward to when it's me who has to do it :/.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on May 10, 2008 11:05:39 GMT -5
- Okay sorry Aadmin didnt read that post...
Anyways the mentally challegned people I believe should not be saved, then the ones with chronic diseases.
The mentally handicapped because they are an extra burden(In this situation I'm insensitive) and they wouldnt know whats happening half the time anyway.
The people with chronic diseases shouldn't be saved why? Because they dont have much to live for anyway, and would just use up to much time/energy from the healthy people.
|
|
|
Post by Kassandros on May 10, 2008 13:44:31 GMT -5
Mega disaster is somehow equivelant with a given war for a small nation. In wars the average age of the soldiers is 19... and that is the idea. The deads to be youngs. The ones that should be saved are men 30-40 years of age due to the fact that these people can both a) reconstruct a country because they are proffesionals in their jobs and all jobs are needed in a reconstruction b) their age helps them to reproduce the human kind of their nation. and women 20-30 because to work as mothers. So.. the ones less than 30 and and the ones more than 40-45 are useless in such a situation. All the healthy ones from 30 to 40. This is the dogma in every country. The bad thing is... in 2 years I will be in deep sh*it..
|
|
|
Post by Teuta1975 on May 11, 2008 1:12:51 GMT -5
People older than 85 and
Those with severe mental impairment and severe physical disability.
Basil, let women from 30 to 40 live...they are productive ;D
|
|
|
Post by albquietman on May 11, 2008 2:55:17 GMT -5
Mega disaster...history tells us that mega disasters are not something that we can control, and by that I mean that the nature that causes them doesn't give us the option to choose who will live and who will die, unless we humans cause them (think Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The Little Ice Age and the Black Death in Middle Ages didn't give us the option to choose who will live and who will die , so what makes us think that we will have that option today or sometimes in the future?
Anyway, if we'll have that option in the future, natural selection will kick in, and that means that the older people will have to go and the youngest will live in order to make our race to keep going, no matter if it deserves it or not (think wars and suffering that we still cause to our own race), but still we are the most powerful species on this planet, so we have the right and the power to decide in some way, since we are not in Middle Ages today...but we shouldn't forget the social system that we have invented and created, and as we all know, they are all, as of today, based on money, and that means that who has the money will have the right to live no matter the age...I don't think that a rich man will choose to go just because he's too old if he was asked to do so in order to save a kid, even he/she is smarter than him/her, and of course much younger...rich people simply don't care, so as long as money means power, forget about choosing who will live and who will die...they will live and the poor will die, unless we as humans will get smarter and create a better world...
|
|
|
Post by SKORIC on May 11, 2008 8:00:32 GMT -5
I dont agree with everyone over 85.. There are 85 year olds that are more healthy then 65 year olds..
|
|
|
Post by Teuta1975 on May 12, 2008 0:30:51 GMT -5
It's not only matter of being healthy...but productive in order to survive! As AlbQ said, the rich might have their bunkers ready and they will be saved...as if they have any special ability except doing nothing all day long - their children I mean...(I hate rich people!!! Am I crazy??)
PS: Kanaris, are you rich??? ;D
|
|
Aris
Amicus
Greek Troll
Posts: 832
|
Post by Aris on Jul 24, 2009 17:29:29 GMT -5
Stupid poll !
|
|