Jdsk wrote:Totally agree.
In healthcare there might be some examples where there's direct harm to Patient B, but there are many where it's indirect such as antibiotics and resistance, and one where it's universal: the allocation of resources.
But I don't see the need for an analogy from another sector: there's obviously an ethical problem with any activity that causes the death of anybody. Has anyone ever denied that?
Jonathan
PS: Have I found the right papers?
I was thinking that it was a clumsy analogy, and not very useful.
The problem with belts is that they have been mandated, as a
public health intervention at the expense of some road users, for the putative advantage of others.
This problem is not something publically discussed, quite the contrary.
Perhaps another parallel might contribute.
Motor vehicles put out various pollutants, which have been getting publicity lately.
If they were fitted with efficient filters, so that those in them could breath healthy air, but those outside breathed the pollution, would that be reasonable?
Of course, such a set up would not make things worse for those on foot or two wheels, so not a complete parallel.
In any case, mandating a measure which makes the vulnerable even less safe seems to me wrong.