I don’t object to such a policy becoming public, in fact I think it might do some good. If ant-vax pts get insulted and decide to take their ICU business elsewhere, then good luck to them. As far as lawsuits go, I would welcome some clarification on that as well. This is a tricky area, I don’t really want to make prior at risk conditions or decisions a regular basis for rationing healthcare. I used to work on a rehab unit fir head injuries, and most of out pts were young men who got into motorcycle accidents without a helmet. It was common for staff to say that we should have a rule denying care to anyone who got a head injury without a helmet, but that was frustration talking, not a serious suggestion. This is different, because the risky decision is not just responsible for the condition needing treatment, but for the stress on the system that is making rationing necessary. Any judge who ruled against this would have to suggest another, more equitable solution.
On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 at 7:49 AM Tom Wolper <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:49 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I actually have had to explain it to angry family members (well, not >> explain, but help them process it). >> >> It’s not a matter of denying a pt a bed; when the hospital resources are >> exhausted, some pts are going to be denied resources. It’s a matter of who >> gets the limited supply. I am just suggesting if it comes down to 2 pts >> needing one ICU bed, I would not be against using vaccination status as one >> of the tie breakers. >> > > There's no debate that scarcity is the issue. If there are two patients in > Emergency who need an ICU bed and one opens up, the staff has to decide who > will get the bed. However they make their decision, one family will be told > we're waiting for an ICU bed to open. In this case the family doesn't know > that a bed had opened and their sick family member didn't get it. So they > might be impatient and even angry but the staff can say there's nothing > they can do until a bed opens. If the staff among themselves decide to give > preference to a vaccinated patient, who will know? > > On the other hand if it becomes written hospital policy that vaccinated > patients get priority in life saving situations, that opens up a can of > worms. Then they are asking to be sued and get horrible coverage for > abandoning members of the community. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiEZbhFbqzy2ze4XYZ6sPKm3kcpjVEr73DPebsSZC7MZCQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiEZbhFbqzy2ze4XYZ6sPKm3kcpjVEr73DPebsSZC7MZCQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYJhzNr7BcMKVJiCk9rPh9Q2H89xksm0DcRSQWGOwKC0Gg%40mail.gmail.com.
