On Penicillin (military applications)-
I happen to agree with the method of distribution for penicillin. The substance was developed as an indirect result of research for treating infection of wounds, namely bullet wounds. With guns becoming a more and more effective instrument of war, wounds of this nature were becoming more and more of a concern. Who better to get a treatment for open wound infection than a soldier? On top of that penicillin was at the time an experimental substance, and as such needed testing. Bottom line is: soldiers had the most to gain and were the best for testing because they in fact did have the most to gain, the benefits outweighed the risks.
On Penicillin (public distribution)-
The COC's method of distribution was logical, people's ailments were prioritised and the substance was distributed respectively as it was made available. I honestly think they handled this situation well enough. Taking those with the worst injuries and the greatest need for the substance first and then those with a lesser need after is the only logical course of action. First come first server methods pale by moral comparison.
On Dialysis (oversight committee)-
This council of sorts had a representative from every major demographic of the time, thus ensuring the varying opinions and concern of these demographics were all heard and considered during the decision making process. It seems like a well rounded council of representatives. It would have been better if it was a larger selection of people, opinions can change within a demographic, but that might have been a bit too extreme.
On Dialysis (public distribution)-
I do not agree. People in other states pay taxes just the same as any other, and in any given state not everyone pays all their taxes. Right off the bat their logic is flawed. Also simply refusing treatment to children is outrageous, so what if more children benefit from prioritizing parents, what about benefiting parents? Losing a child is a terrible thing, even more so when a treatment is available, but was simply withheld. Also, who determines who's life is beneficial to society and who's isn't? This fascist death panel? Unacceptable, anyone who pretends that they may judge another and rate their claim to life should be forced to give their own in penance! The criteria for determining distribution of treatment was bias, unfair and generally irresponsible.
No comments:
Post a Comment