Originally Posted by NoahJ
Life for life, seems cost neutral. Pretty soon you will be trying to get me to tell you if one person is worth more than another, or many others. Then do we get to go into what makes them worth saving over the other person or persons?
That's not at all what I'm trying to get you to do. You presented a fairly idealistic claim that you don't place a value on human life. I'm suggesting that, in fact, you do. That everyone would. It's not something we'd like to admit, and it's something that we can only claim we don't do if we are given unlimited resources devoted solely to us. But in the end, given limited resources and the ethical concerns of removing services from others in order to sustain a poor quality of life for a brief amount of time, we all would work this calculus.
I would only make the decision to pull the plug if I felt certain I had exhausted every other ETHICAL option for recuperation. Is it ethical to rob the life of other patients to keep my loved one alive?
(Seems to cover your question before you even asked it.)
Is it? That's the question I asked you.
The last part of my statement is my introspection and I clearly cannot answer it when not in the situation. You are not going to force me to pretend I know what I will say the day that comes.
I can't force you to do anything. But I can wonder at why you refuse to examine the ethics and economy of a hypothetical situation while, just above this statement, you asked me the very same question.
Nor are you going to take away my ability to choose.
To choose what?
Also bear in mind, there will be others also looking out for their patients
That is my answer and as far as I should need to go in this part discussion.
But you didn't answer anything beyond saying "I'd pull the plug if all other ethical options were exhausted." That's not the question.
I asked "So you're saying that if, for instance, it required every resource in a hospital working entirely on a single patient for 3 weeks to sustain the life of a single person for 10 minutes, you'd be OK with that?"
You answered my question by correctly sussing out the ethical issue at the heart of it and then restated the question. Then you refused to engage the very same question I'd led you to while asking me the very same question.
And now we're all meta.
Would it be ethical to demand that an entire hospital devote every resource for an extended time in order to the preserve a poor quality of life for a brief amount of time?