In a related story...
Check out this news post on the OJ Simpson book story here.
It reads just like a standard news story until the last two paragraphs. As you may know, the Chinese media and press have heavy government influence (control?). News articles like this, a fairly standard presentation of the facts followed by a moral commentary, are not uncommon. Do you see anything wrong with this? Could this (moral commentary in news) be a good thing?
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
If I did it...
I'm sure most of you remember the infamous OJ Simpson trial. This most recent news, OJ signing up for a book entitled "If I did it" wherein he describes how he WOULD have killed his wife and friend if he HAD done the murders, is particularly surprising. Clearly this is born out of a desire to make some money -- OJ's lawyers bills have been expensive over the years. But what else does it tell us? Is this just OJ mocking us? The principle of Double Jeopardy seems to be a good one in our nation's judicial system... but situations like this sure test our patience. Any thoughts on the whole concept of someone speaking in detail about crimes they "didn't" commit? Is double jeopardy a good institution in our legal system? Should there be any exceptions?
You can see a brief news story on the OJ book
Here.
You can see a brief news story on the OJ book
Here.
Wednesday, November 8, 2006
A medical ethics/military ethics dillema
Here's an interesting dillema for you to consider:
Imaine it is WWII North Africa campaign. You are a medic at a med station back behind enemy lines. Your medical center is in very short supply of penicillin. Your job is to treat those troops you can help and get them back to the front lines as soon as possible. You often have to do the hard work of triage.
On one particular night your penicilin supplies are running very short. Currently you have a handful of troops in your clinic and you won't have enough penicillin for all of them that need it. Some of the troops are in the clinic because they have some kind of venereal disease that they got from being promiscuous with some local women. Some others of the troops are in your clinic because they got seriously wounded fighting on the front lines. Each group needs the penicilin. If you give the penicillin to the wounded troops it will help them get better, but it is going to take a long time and even then they won't be able to return to combat (because they've lost a limb or something, etc.). The VD soldiers, on the other hand, could very quickly be cured of their VD via the penicillin and can quickly return to the front lines of combat after you give it to them.
So... who do you give the penicillin to?
Imaine it is WWII North Africa campaign. You are a medic at a med station back behind enemy lines. Your medical center is in very short supply of penicillin. Your job is to treat those troops you can help and get them back to the front lines as soon as possible. You often have to do the hard work of triage.
On one particular night your penicilin supplies are running very short. Currently you have a handful of troops in your clinic and you won't have enough penicillin for all of them that need it. Some of the troops are in the clinic because they have some kind of venereal disease that they got from being promiscuous with some local women. Some others of the troops are in your clinic because they got seriously wounded fighting on the front lines. Each group needs the penicilin. If you give the penicillin to the wounded troops it will help them get better, but it is going to take a long time and even then they won't be able to return to combat (because they've lost a limb or something, etc.). The VD soldiers, on the other hand, could very quickly be cured of their VD via the penicillin and can quickly return to the front lines of combat after you give it to them.
So... who do you give the penicillin to?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
