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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Some people say the mission is more important, but others say that the people are more important. I believe the people are more important. The mission will always usually get accomplished, but only by taking care of the people. To do this, medicine should be given to those with the VD because this allows them to return to the front lines and protect even more people that are on the front lines. It seems wrong to punish the good soldiers, but in order for them and others to stay safe..the VD soldiers need the medicine to continue the execution of the mission. The healed soldiers may also allow for the quick resupply of penicillin.
I think as a medic i would administer the medicine to those who were injured in combat. i wouldn't nec hold it against the soldiers who got the VD, but at the same time, i would probably help those who got injured in the call of duty. true, technically so did the soldiers with VD, but i think anyone with half a brain can realize the difference bt the two situations. i'm sure the group of soldiers with VD is not big enough to make a large impact on the front lines, anyways (i only have a small amount of medicine). so, in the end, i think my "loyalty" goes to those who were injured in combat, not out w/ some slutty women.
I am sorry, but someone has to throw Kant in this thing. I just can't see rewarding men for acting in less than the model behavior to which the American people hold us, is fair. I also maintain that no one deserves treatment more than the men at the front who are fighting for your and my freedom and risking their life in the process. The VD "heroes" seem to have brought this suffering upon themselves, and justice with a capital "J" is being served. It sucks for them, but people should not being doing that escpecially since they had to solicit prostitutes which is ILLEGAL. If you continue to stretch the consequentialist view out, you should kill the guys who were on the front and take their uniforms, arms, and food and give it to the VD soldiers on the front. No one would really advocate that because it is not just even though it fits basic consequentialism. The greater moral good, the highe calling of morality and justice must be satisfied. I think if you dig deep within you, you will also find a need to satisfy the greater good or just Kant.
Many consequentalists might respond, "save the VD troops" because it appears to produce more soldiers able to fight. However, I question this conclusion.
For one, by using the antibotics on the VD soldiers and not the soldiers wounded in battle, you are setting a precedence of not caring for your troops who've fought in battle. Your troops in the future will be much less willing to risk their lives if they know they won't receive proper medical attention. Overall, not only will the effectiveness of soldiers decrease, but so will the number of soldiers willing to fight.
Secondly, from a consequentalist point of view, you're saving the maximum number of lives. Yes, their VD is probably painful, but its not life threatening. The wounded soldiers, however, are near death and can only be saved with the antibotics. Overall, by giving the wounded the antibotics, the most number of people will live.
As a doctor, my job would simply be to treat patients. I understand that being a military doctor in a combat zone means I am trying to fix people so they can be sent back to the fighting, but as a doctor, my duty to save people comes first. The soldiers with VD are not in life-condition, where as some of the injured soldiers may be. Further, although one could make an arguement that the soldiers did it to themselves by signing up for combat, they contracting their injuries asa result of fulfilling thier duties, whereas the VD patients contracted their diseases in other than ethical activities (immoral to my standards).
In a situation like this, it's important to look at the benefits and consequences of your actions. So let's take a look at the benefits of giving the penicillin to each group. First, if you give it to the soldiers wounded in battle, they will eventually get better and you will feel good about helping those who have made a sacrifice. On the other hand, if you give it to the soldiers with VD, they will get better very quickly, and can be sent back to the front lines to help ease the shortage of troops. I think that you need to put your own pride aside, and even though you may feel bad, give the penicillin to the soldiers with VD. Everyone would agree that the benefits of this choice outweigh the benefits of giving it to the wounded. Even though you may feel bad, your most important job is to help win the war... And hey, you may even be able to teach a lesson out of this, Get VD, and your goin back to the front!
Post a Comment