Hypothetical situation: Two people are in a hospital with the same exact life threatening disease. One person is wealthy and elderly. They are in their mid 80s and have lived a long fulfilling life. The other person is a elementary child in poverty. Their life hasn’t even truly began yet.
Both are more or less in the same exact condition with the same amount of time left to do something before the disease takes their life. There is medicine that will 100% save their lives. There isn’t time to get enough medicine to save both however. It’s either used on one or the other. The elderly patient has the money to pay for the medication without problem. The child’s family can’t afford the medication.
Morally, where would you stand in this situation. Is it right to just allow the medication to go to the elderly patient because they can afford it? Does the child deserve to die because their family can’t afford to pay for the medicine? Does the child deserve the medication more given the elderly person probably won’t live much longer even if the medicine saves them due to old age? Does someone deserve to die simply for being elderly? What would you do if you had to be the deciding factor in this ultimatum?
Is a life simply worth how much you can afford to stay alive, or how much life you’ve already lived?
damn off first read i was like ofc save the kid, no question
but at the same time just because someone is old doesnt mean they can be so easily discarded. I wouldn't like it if a hospital refused to save my grandma for the mere fact that she was "too old"
but at the end of the day i would still save the kid
I’m better than all u niggas
I’m playing Skate 3 right now finna go make some Chicken nuggets and then pretend like I’m Kanye West cooking beats
the elderly person has already lived their life. the children is getting the cure 100%.
Hypothetical situation: Two people are in a hospital with the same exact life threatening disease. One person is wealthy and elderly. They are in their mid 80s and have lived a long fulfilling life. The other person is a elementary child in poverty. Their life hasn’t even truly began yet.
Both are more or less in the same exact condition with the same amount of time left to do something before the disease takes their life. There is medicine that will 100% save their lives. There isn’t time to get enough medicine to save both however. It’s either used on one or the other. The elderly patient has the money to pay for the medication without problem. The child’s family can’t afford the medication.
Morally, where would you stand in this situation. Is it right to just allow the medication to go to the elderly patient because they can afford it? Does the child deserve to die because their family can’t afford to pay for the medicine? Does the child deserve the medication more given the elderly person probably won’t live much longer even if the medicine saves them due to old age? Does someone deserve to die simply for being elderly? What would you do if you had to be the deciding factor in this ultimatum?
Is a life simply worth how much you can afford to stay alive, or how much life you’ve already lived?
In this scenario the person who pays for it gets it. If it was free the child.
the elderly person has already lived their life. the children is getting the cure 100%.
This is called Triage and there are people whose job it is to make this decision every day
That said, save the kid.