this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2024
523 points (98.7% liked)
Not The Onion
12525 readers
774 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not OP, but it's going to be really hard to assign a hard value to that. There are plenty of obvious examples where they denied a life-saving treatment. But many of them would've died anyway.
Then there are cases where they deny preventative/early treatments. Some of these eventually led to more serious and fatal conditions, some did not. How do we count these?
Then there's quality of life denials. These don't directly lead to fatal conditions, but can affect morale and the like, thus allowing more serious conditions?
All of it would be compared to the unexplored alternatives (where treatment was authorized). This is inherently an unknown.
I'm not defending him by any means. It's just that his body count is, at best, a rough estimate.
Whether they would have died anyway isn't a measure of whether it is ethical to deny someone care that was the only chance they had. Removing the possibility is still murder.