MoneyMelon wrote:The list is as follows....
And I bet the government paid $10 million for this study?
It seems cold, but that's because we aren't in a ...what did they call it? casualty high event? Medical evaluation isn't new. Any war medic would probably tell you that part of their training includes making a quick decision about whether to treat this injured soldier over treating that injured soldier, based on liklihood of succes. It's not cold, it's practical.
And maybe we don't like thinking about saving lives in practical terms, but if we don't, and we do have an event like this, the result of trying to make it up on the spot will be far worse. If we don't decide when things are calm, what's likely to happen is that some patients with low-success chances will occupy medical staff, while patients that would have a good chance of surviving had they recieved faster medical treatment would die. You'll get, on average, more death if you don't screen out the low-success patients.