Morality poll

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
The goal of the pilot is to kill no one, not kill less.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arguing is fun when you make blanket statements that are silly.

A plane crashing into the ground is going to kill people. Pilots often attempt to keep the planes from hitting densely populated areas. They may kill others on the ground in the process and still get an airfield named after them.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) do you want to live in a world where if you vist hospital you are available for harvesting if required to save more than one life? Would you work there?, would you live nearby? Would you let your wife/daughter give birth there?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Case closed.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, do any of you guys see a fundamental difference from scenario 2 and the doctors who fudge insurance forms or hospital orders to get their patients the treatments they need? I imagine most doctors would find them significantly different, but to me is just seems a matter of magnitude, no fundamental difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
Depends what you mean by fundemental. Fraud (possibly minor fraud) is generally considered signifiantly different to murder even if we agree they are wrong.

If you're suggesting that the fraud means other people are denied treatment then I think that is not the case.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think fraud does mean that, that other people are denied treatment, because we are dealing with a finite resource pool. At the very least, allow my assertion that it is the same for the purpose of a hypothetical. Lets say its zero sum, and every resource you use to help someone is a resource you are stealing from someone else. Is it more like scenario 1 or 2? I suppose its more like 1, since it is the fraudulent billing or allocation that is saving the lives of your five patients, with the inevitable harm to the other patient (actually, its probably helping one and hurting 5, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way).

This is probably a different enough scenario that it would be a thread hijack, maybe I'll start another thread on it at some point. Probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree its zero sum and I think there's a decent chance that this type of fraud in the system increases the number of people treated.

but its a dull economic argument not a dull philosophical one [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really think that, and could expand on it a bit and explain it to me (using small words and speaking slowly, since I know less about economics than I do about science and philosophy, if you can believe that) perhaps it would be worth starting another thread after all. It seems extremely counter-intuitive to me, and worse, seems like a self-serving and convenient argument for doctors whose emotions drive them to help the patient in front of them at any cost.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not a finite rresource pool (at least not in practice) and generally treatment reduces the cost of treatment for others, I don't think that's equalled or outweighed by the those unable to afford treament because of the money effectively stolen from them.

chez

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the above clears up this problem.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, all you're telling me is that morality is what the majority thinks it is. Is that your position?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, my definition of morality is what I think it is.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, do any of you guys see a fundamental difference from scenario 2 and the doctors who fudge insurance forms or hospital orders to get their patients the treatments they need? I imagine most doctors would find them significantly different, but to me is just seems a matter of magnitude, no fundamental difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
Depends what you mean by fundemental. Fraud (possibly minor fraud) is generally considered signifiantly different to murder even if we agree they are wrong.

If you're suggesting that the fraud means other people are denied treatment then I think that is not the case.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think fraud does mean that, that other people are denied treatment, because we are dealing with a finite resource pool. At the very least, allow my assertion that it is the same for the purpose of a hypothetical. Lets say its zero sum, and every resource you use to help someone is a resource you are stealing from someone else. Is it more like scenario 1 or 2? I suppose its more like 1, since it is the fraudulent billing or allocation that is saving the lives of your five patients, with the inevitable harm to the other patient (actually, its probably helping one and hurting 5, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way).

This is probably a different enough scenario that it would be a thread hijack, maybe I'll start another thread on it at some point. Probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree its zero sum and I think there's a decent chance that this type of fraud in the system increases the number of people treated.

but its a dull economic argument not a dull philosophical one [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be dull, but I think you need to be open to the alternative.

More fraud --> Higher health care costs --> Fewer people afford it --> Fewer covered

I can't prove it and I doubt any of us have the data to support either way quantitatively, but the logic suggests that there must be an effect.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, do any of you guys see a fundamental difference from scenario 2 and the doctors who fudge insurance forms or hospital orders to get their patients the treatments they need? I imagine most doctors would find them significantly different, but to me is just seems a matter of magnitude, no fundamental difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
Depends what you mean by fundemental. Fraud (possibly minor fraud) is generally considered signifiantly different to murder even if we agree they are wrong.

If you're suggesting that the fraud means other people are denied treatment then I think that is not the case.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think fraud does mean that, that other people are denied treatment, because we are dealing with a finite resource pool. At the very least, allow my assertion that it is the same for the purpose of a hypothetical. Lets say its zero sum, and every resource you use to help someone is a resource you are stealing from someone else. Is it more like scenario 1 or 2? I suppose its more like 1, since it is the fraudulent billing or allocation that is saving the lives of your five patients, with the inevitable harm to the other patient (actually, its probably helping one and hurting 5, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way).

This is probably a different enough scenario that it would be a thread hijack, maybe I'll start another thread on it at some point. Probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree its zero sum and I think there's a decent chance that this type of fraud in the system increases the number of people treated.

but its a dull economic argument not a dull philosophical one [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be dull, but I think you need to be open to the alternative.

More fraud --> Higher health care costs --> Fewer people afford it --> Fewer covered

I can't prove it and I doubt any of us have the data to support either way quantitatively, but the logic suggests that there must be an effect.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am open to it but there's the competing reductuion in costs caused by more treatment and absolutely no reason to believe they are equal and opposite. I think there's a good economic argument (capitalism 101) that the net result is more treatment not less.

I'd also argue that outside vhawk's ideal world (and in the real messy world) a significant amount of minor fraud may be optimum.

chez

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Arguing is fun when you make blanket statements that are silly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I've been called obnoxious, caustic, and now....silly. At least I'm not stupid.

[ QUOTE ]
They (pilots) may kill others on the ground in the process and still get an airfield named after them.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're stupid.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
No, my definition of morality is what I think it is.

[/ QUOTE ]
No [censored], Sherlock. You're brilliant.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, do any of you guys see a fundamental difference from scenario 2 and the doctors who fudge insurance forms or hospital orders to get their patients the treatments they need? I imagine most doctors would find them significantly different, but to me is just seems a matter of magnitude, no fundamental difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
Depends what you mean by fundemental. Fraud (possibly minor fraud) is generally considered signifiantly different to murder even if we agree they are wrong.

If you're suggesting that the fraud means other people are denied treatment then I think that is not the case.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think fraud does mean that, that other people are denied treatment, because we are dealing with a finite resource pool. At the very least, allow my assertion that it is the same for the purpose of a hypothetical. Lets say its zero sum, and every resource you use to help someone is a resource you are stealing from someone else. Is it more like scenario 1 or 2? I suppose its more like 1, since it is the fraudulent billing or allocation that is saving the lives of your five patients, with the inevitable harm to the other patient (actually, its probably helping one and hurting 5, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way).

This is probably a different enough scenario that it would be a thread hijack, maybe I'll start another thread on it at some point. Probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree its zero sum and I think there's a decent chance that this type of fraud in the system increases the number of people treated.

but its a dull economic argument not a dull philosophical one [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be dull, but I think you need to be open to the alternative.

More fraud --> Higher health care costs --> Fewer people afford it --> Fewer covered

I can't prove it and I doubt any of us have the data to support either way quantitatively, but the logic suggests that there must be an effect.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am open to it but there's the competing reductuion in costs caused by more treatment and absolutely no reason to believe they are equal and opposite. I think there's a good economic argument (capitalism 101) that the net result is more treatment not less.

I'd also argue that outside vhawk's ideal world (and in the real messy world) a significant amount of minor fraud may be optimum.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd argue it or you'd assert it? Just asking, not taking a jab. If you can argue it I'll make the thread.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, do any of you guys see a fundamental difference from scenario 2 and the doctors who fudge insurance forms or hospital orders to get their patients the treatments they need? I imagine most doctors would find them significantly different, but to me is just seems a matter of magnitude, no fundamental difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
Depends what you mean by fundemental. Fraud (possibly minor fraud) is generally considered signifiantly different to murder even if we agree they are wrong.

If you're suggesting that the fraud means other people are denied treatment then I think that is not the case.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think fraud does mean that, that other people are denied treatment, because we are dealing with a finite resource pool. At the very least, allow my assertion that it is the same for the purpose of a hypothetical. Lets say its zero sum, and every resource you use to help someone is a resource you are stealing from someone else. Is it more like scenario 1 or 2? I suppose its more like 1, since it is the fraudulent billing or allocation that is saving the lives of your five patients, with the inevitable harm to the other patient (actually, its probably helping one and hurting 5, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way).

This is probably a different enough scenario that it would be a thread hijack, maybe I'll start another thread on it at some point. Probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree its zero sum and I think there's a decent chance that this type of fraud in the system increases the number of people treated.

but its a dull economic argument not a dull philosophical one [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be dull, but I think you need to be open to the alternative.

More fraud --> Higher health care costs --> Fewer people afford it --> Fewer covered

I can't prove it and I doubt any of us have the data to support either way quantitatively, but the logic suggests that there must be an effect.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am open to it but there's the competing reductuion in costs caused by more treatment and absolutely no reason to believe they are equal and opposite. I think there's a good economic argument (capitalism 101) that the net result is more treatment not less.

I'd also argue that outside vhawk's ideal world (and in the real messy world) a significant amount of minor fraud may be optimum.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd argue it or you'd assert it? Just asking, not taking a jab. If you can argue it I'll make the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a fair jab and I'd argue for it. But its not something I can demonstrate but would argue that you can't demonstrate your point of view is more correct. I'd also produce some hopefully impressive gesticulatory arguments for my view.

chez