12-08-2024, 12:32 AM
Our learned friend Benjamin is correct in that he's arguing something completely different.
His simple point (I think) is that no matter the circumstances, murdering a CEO in cold blood is not justified as he is making decisions about allocating scarce resources (health care) based on need and resource availability.
These decisions are exactly the same as those made in public health systems all around the world. So, if denial of service based on scarce resources occurs in the UK (which it does), then assassinating the head of the NHS Midlands for their service classifying someone as non-urgent who subsequently dies before care can be provided does not justify murdering them in cold blood.
Have I got your point esteemed Benjamin?
His simple point (I think) is that no matter the circumstances, murdering a CEO in cold blood is not justified as he is making decisions about allocating scarce resources (health care) based on need and resource availability.
These decisions are exactly the same as those made in public health systems all around the world. So, if denial of service based on scarce resources occurs in the UK (which it does), then assassinating the head of the NHS Midlands for their service classifying someone as non-urgent who subsequently dies before care can be provided does not justify murdering them in cold blood.
Have I got your point esteemed Benjamin?
2 users liked this post: