Comments by "Harry Stoddard" (@HarryS77) on "Anti-Vaxxers Protest At Hospitals While Stressed Nurse Shares Experience" video.

That's psychotic. If someone needs emergency care, they should receive it regardless of vaccination status. We don't refuse care to obese people, chain smokers, or anyone else we might blame for "making a choice." To do so only reenacts the same warped logic of individualism that is putting unvaccinated people in the hospital in the first place.
4
@GreenBeanGreenBean I actually don't think that. If a hospital doesn't have the resources to provide care, then they can't provide care. Hospitals have to choose whom to prioritize based on need. That's different from refusing care as a blanket policy. An unvaccinated covid patient with plummeting O2 needs care.
4
These things aren't mutually exclusive.
1
@olivergrayhoundII I'm glad health professionals disagree with you, because your "logic" is psychotic under any circumstances.
1
@subversionz4919 It's so flawed that the hospitals themselves agree that they shouldn't refuse care. It's so flawed that it's essentially what medical ethicist Daniel Wilker argued in a recent WaPo oped. He writes, "priority depends on how serious their condition is, how urgently they need help and how well they are likely to do if treated. What does not matter is culpability, blame, sin, cluelessness, ignorance or other personal feelings." Like Wilker and you, I share the sense of frustration directed toward people who wilfully, ignorantly, and bumptiously defy sensible public health measures like vaccination. But that frustration can't be the foundation of policy. If hospitals were to be flooded with patients suffering from complications related to obesity, smoking, or any other "personal choice," it would be okay to create a policy refusing care to them? Again, it's an absolutely psychotic proposal that contradicts the principles and ethics of the health profession.
1
@dsa513 No, it's a good analogy because it highlights what we want in public health policy, particularly during a pandemic, namely, a priority on urgency, need, and likely outcome, not the assignment of culpability. A blanket refusal to care for the unvaccinated violates those core principles of health policy and works to further erode trust in doctors and hospitals. Doctors are not judges. Analogy cannot capture every feature of possible comparison, nor does it need to. The fact that you can find asymmetries between the things being compared doesn't refute what is actually being compared. In this case, we're comparing the provision of care based on whether or not a patient availed themselves of an intervention or preventative measure—eg diet and exercise or a vaccine—not the specific nature of the respective intervention. What is "Hippocratic oath is what it is" supposed to mean? 🤦‍♂️
1
@juresichj You're a sociopath. Go tell to your doctor what you typed here and see what kind of reaction they give you.
1
@juresichj You're a sociopath. FYI this isn't about someone who's unvaccinated and going in for a routine check up or something. Most medical professionals would agree that for non-emergency visits, it's acceptable to require vaccination or a negative test. What you're suggesting is that hospitals refuse care to people with serious symptoms, covid related or not, because they're unvaccinated. Worse: you're essentially advocating for euthanizing these people. I find it hard to believe your doctor agrees with THAT. If anything, keeping these people out of hospitals increases the likelihood that they'll spread the virus to others, first to those caring for them, who most likely won't have proper protection or know what to do, then to others those care providers come into contact with. It's almost as if you haven't thought through the ramifications of your "pragmatic" proposal. Yeah, you're a sociopath. Sorry, but you're no better than these anti-vaxx Trump death cultists.
1
@suzannfulbright5652 Please read the thread before commenting so I don't have to repeat myself.
1