In a resource shortage, should younger people get medical priority?

[RachyRach]

If resources are running low, should younger people be prioritized when it comes to medical care?

Updates

1 mo

For context, let's assume that an 18 year old and an 80 year old have the exact same issue, but there are only resources available to assist one of them. Who should get priority?

[ohsheeT]

I think people that need it should have it i also believe if you understand who you are and what you do on the side will cure you but you have to understand energy

I also believe in water good clean fresh water
In its own way water is a God if you understand the breakdown and the properties of water and what you say to yourself and to the water before you drink it it will help you

If you have something wrong with you and you're running at a resources I would love to chat with you

To help you understand about water

And all the findings about it

Did you know water was our first computer water holds memory that means everybody on this planet

We live nine months In water Before we are born

I can explain it better to you if you want

I'm not talking about bottles of water I'm not talking about tap water I'm talking about filtered water at least

But like I said if something is wrong with you Please DM so I can try to help you

[ohsheeT]

This is really a catch 22 type of question and answer the younger person has a lot more going for her and should have the opportunity to live life fully

At the same time the older woman has put her time and paid her dues and should be able to live the rest of her life happy and not ill

And this is why big Pharma sucks because they are trillionaires they have the manpower to do the research that would cure cancer that has cured a lot of things that they're so fucking greedy that the only put half the ingredients in there just enough to make them feel better for a week or so and then bring them back in to get their prescription filled again money money and nothing but greed I don't wish ill on anybody the witness just be Karma that everybody in big Pharma that knows exactly what's going on come down with something it's uncurable

This is why our world has to change because there's a lot of evil Greedy motherfuckers out there And if I was a king they would all have to pay the price Sorry I don't mean to be that way but at the same time I'm 100 being straight up

[matchrestore]

I think the triage of medical resources is far more complicated than just age. You need to consider the knowledge base needed for society to continue functioning, the likelihood of an individual to survive and/or recover from the medical procedure, if an individual can survive without the treatment or if treatment is delayed, etc.

[FreyaRed]

In societies with obligatory health insurgence, this can be problematic. 80 yo. person paid at least 62 years in this healthcare system, while 18 yo. person didn't pay in a dime.
If you kill the 80 yo. no one ever will be willing to pay in such healthcare insurance. If let the 18 yo die, this insurance will lose a participant who would pay in the future.
Ergo. only solution is to care that there are enough resources because triage categorizing will destroy such healthcare system in one way or another.

In healthcare systems like US it doesn't really matter, you have money you get a treatment, you don't man than sorry for you, no matter how old you're.

[Anonymous]

That's where things are headed, hospitals are in the process of gradually turning the volume down on older patients so they effectively won't be getting medical treatment at all and will quietly slip away.

[strateguy632]

only in triage. but medicine or organs etc. whoever asked first and was eligible should get first.

especially if the one who 'needs a lung' or else will die, was himself ruined his lung smoking, despite warnings on package.

not by "who will die if not get" that is immoral. the 'young' recover better and are strong, so can't give to young first. society must help weak that is humanity before the young or strong. this for all medicine and treatment except 'triage' as above.

[Zack-Bann]

I think it’s more than just age.
But pragmatically in an extinction event you would rather save the most valuable specimens to hope that they weather the storm.


It would certainly mean a lot if older people might be sacrificed but some of them are definitely indispensable.


Youth isn’t instantly an indicative of health and vigor.

[OneViewpoint]

Medicine has adopted triage as the standard of allocation for scarce resources. it basically allocates the resources to whoever has the highest need and the best chance of survival. Age is one consideration. The damage is another. General health and existing health conditions is another. The available resources is another. Triage may not be perfect but it's a systematic approach to deal with tough decisions.

[NathanDavis]

I think that would depend on how dire the situation actually is...

if survival is at stake, then those who already lived longer... should wait, lol

[Anonymous]

Is your name a play on "ratchet"? Because if so shouldn't it be "RatchyRatch"?

To answer your question, doctors do in situations of triage try to determine life threatening care first, not age (even though age a lot of times can be a determinant of that). So no, if anything it'd probably be the other way around.

[RachyRach]

No it isn't lol my name is Rachel.

[Opinion Owner]

Oh, lol👍

[Anonymous]

Deciding if younger people get medical priority during a shortage involves complex ethical debate. Many systems use a "fair innings" or life-years saved approach, which favors the young because they have lived fewer years. Other systems reject age-based rationing to prevent discrimination and instead focus purely on who is most likely to survive. Tough question.

[lightbulb27]

What if the old person has knowledge the ithers dont.

in general, yes but its usually done by severity.

[DryGermanGuy]

If you mean a triage situation, the medical help will prioritized go to the people with the highest chances of survival.

[_Jenny_]

@RachyRach Regardless of age, a professional doctor should be able to tell who needs to be treated.

[Anonymous]

No, whoever needs it more, not related to age.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

I think the issue with the US right now has been the preference for the elderly

[exitseven]

No, the elderly can be frail and prone to death if they are not treated.

[Alex-Snow]

It should go based on need and how critical it is.

[Ariesman81Nshiiit]

No. Men should be. Without men everything crumbles.

[Anonymous]

Absolutely not. It should go by who needs it the most.

[choco-latte]

No, it should be by whoever needs it most

[strateguy632]

only if 'treatable in short time and mimnimum personnel and supplies'. if not then help others first. even if they 'bleed out'.
i also suggest asking 'do you want to live'. hopefully they do but if not then skip.

[Bklynbadboy12]

I think that should be up to the doctor

[Anonymous]

Yes, everyone