Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly

irishtimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 527 posts

Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly

#241

Post by BoorishBears »

jlawson wrote: post #225
onion2k wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's different because there's no moral judgement in that position. If you refuse treatment for a condition, even a preventative one, then there's no moral imperative to offer a different treatment later. Doctors did their best to save you, but you didn't do your part. That's on you.

Absolutely not, that's not how it works. You won't be denied tramua treatment for a gunshot because your doc told you to stop playing with guns. You won't be refused heart medicine because you didn't stop eating bacon when your doctor told you to 5 years earlier. You won't be denied ER treatment because you were drunk when you crashed your car. There is no rule where we have to treat all patients equally (including m…

If a collapsed lung from a gunshot wound was contagious you sure would.

If having your head split open in a DWI accident was contagious you would.

Like 99% of the arguments against vaccination this isn't nearly as pithy as you think.

After seeing what going through the initial wave of COVID in a medical provider in the ER did to my mother I could not care less about how many loopholes in efficacy people want to tout.

Vaccines help reduce severity in some capacity. If you can be vaccinated (and not everyone can), and you chose not to because you know better, ask your YouTube doctor of choice to patch you up.

Honestly - shame on you for treating self-preservation as some sort of moral judgement against people someone doesn't like. People don't like to risk their lives for people who won't help themselves.

Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly

#242

Post by enchiridion »

mlyle wrote: post #36
emptyparadise wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>“The key principle in medicine is to treat anyone who is sick, regardless of who they are,” said Arthur Caplan, a bioethics professor at New York University. “We are not in the business of sorting sinners from saints. Crime is a legal matter.” This is so simple and newspapers trying to make it into a matter for debate is actually compromising that.

> This is so simple and newspapers trying to make it into a matter for debate is actually compromising that. Even if one were to consider moral character when allocating organs in general: the researchers needed someone who was sick and likely to die, ineligible for human organ transplant (here, because of severity of condition), and not so sick that there was no chance of success or useful data. So, we're already pi…

It probably happens more than you think. Organs are doled out based on a rating system as evaluated by a small review board

In the case of ties, the question of who “deserves” the organ is relevant to the board members. Uncomfortable but true.

Also doesn’t really apply here as this guy had a last ditch experimental operation. The family in the article just wanted revenge.

Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly

#243

Post by [deleted] »

inglor_cz wrote: post #224
bsder wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is even simpler than that. Someone who has served their time in prison and is now released is considered to have paid their debt to society. You may think, as I do, that this man served nowhere near what he should have for the crime he committed. However, the law has been followed and he is no longer in prison. If the people the New York Post is targeting think that he should still be punished, then he should stil…

I do not want to sound like a person who would deny ex-prisoners medical care (I wouldn't), but legal disabilities even today do not end with your release from prison. For example, felons in the US are banned from owning guns even after they served their time. Do you consider that good or bad?

[deleted]

Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly

#244

Post by eric4smith »

A good test. The guy is older and wanted to remain alive, despite the wishes of his family. And pigs are so close to humans anyway -- which is why I have the theory of why humans love bacon so much.

Best wishes to Mr. Bennett, and hope that whatever happens, it will be a good leap for humanity.

Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly

#245

Post by InvertedRhodium »

achow wrote: post #237
jlawson wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're confused on what the word 'actively' means.

'Actively' seems to be accurate for the scenario when one is choosing to make body conducive to incubate virus, or already incubating them (albeit unknowingly if asymptomatic). [Edit] And if you meant active in context of 'Active shooter', then still use of the word active is not wrong. Virus laden body is like carrying a concealed gun which is on 'auto pilot', it is actively spraying bullets; it IS active all the wh…

I can't think of a single person I know that hasn't ducked down to the shops to pick something up when they have the flu. By your definition, they are actively attempting to cause harm to others - which is an interesting take.

Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly

#246

Post by BreakfastB0b »

eric4smith wrote: post #244

A good test. The guy is older and wanted to remain alive, despite the wishes of his family. And pigs are so close to humans anyway -- which is why I have the theory of why humans love bacon so much. Best wishes to Mr. Bennett, and hope that whatever happens, it will be a good leap for humanity.

Human Bacon, the final frontier. How long until you can buy Beyond Human burgers?

Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly

#247

Post by bertil »

enchiridion wrote: post #242
mlyle wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is so simple and newspapers trying to make it into a matter for debate is actually compromising that. Even if one were to consider moral character when allocating organs in general: the researchers needed someone who was sick and likely to die, ineligible for human organ transplant (here, because of severity of condition), and not so sick that there was no chance of success or useful data. So, we're already pi…

It probably happens more than you think. Organs are doled out based on a rating system as evaluated by a small review board In the case of ties, the question of who “deserves” the organ is relevant to the board members. Uncomfortable but true. Also doesn’t really apply here as this guy had a last ditch experimental operation. The family in the article just wanted revenge.

The organ board base their decision on likelihood that the receiver will benefit from the transplant (for a long time), so some habits that are medically relevant are taken into account: smoking, drinking, taking drugs, and when AIDS was a concern, having sex with people who might transmit it. All those also come a moral judgement so many people assumed that the board was making a moral judgement. They are not: having other conditions complicating the process is relevant; being old too. Being a crimimal is morally relevant but doesn’t come into the judgement of the board.

For lack of a better word, they are maximising the duration of the organ.

Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly

#248

Post by InvertedRhodium »

BoorishBears wrote: post #241
jlawson wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely not, that's not how it works. You won't be denied tramua treatment for a gunshot because your doc told you to stop playing with guns. You won't be refused heart medicine because you didn't stop eating bacon when your doctor told you to 5 years earlier. You won't be denied ER treatment because you were drunk when you crashed your car. There is no rule where we have to treat all patients equally (including m…

If a collapsed lung from a gunshot wound was contagious you sure would. If having your head split open in a DWI accident was contagious you would. Like 99% of the arguments against vaccination this isn't nearly as pithy as you think. After seeing what going through the initial wave of COVID in a medical provider in the ER did to my mother I could not care less about how many loopholes in efficacy people want to tout.…

> People don't like to risk their lives for people who won't help themselves.

That's an entirely reasonable position that I can understand - my advice to those people would be to avoid careers in which they are required to risk their lives for people who won't help themselves.

There's a good reason I'm not a police officer, doctor, fireman, etc. The risk/reward payoff in those careers is far, far too low.

Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly

#249

Post by bertil »

inglor_cz wrote: post #221
emptyparadise wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>“The key principle in medicine is to treat anyone who is sick, regardless of who they are,” said Arthur Caplan, a bioethics professor at New York University. “We are not in the business of sorting sinners from saints. Crime is a legal matter.” This is so simple and newspapers trying to make it into a matter for debate is actually compromising that.

Well, the Zeitgeist of the social networks is "destroy the sinner mercilessly and crush him into dust" plus "whoever does not take part in that crushing or even advocates for mercy is suspicious himself". And too many journalists are on their social network accounts every waking hour, so it seeps through. I suspect that quite a lot of people would support denial of medical care to sinners. For example, the sentiment…

What you see on social networks is a reflection of who you choose to follow and engage with. I use social networks to engage with people who actually make those decisions and they do not encourage any of that.

Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly

#250

Post by ako »

jlawson wrote: post #225
onion2k wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's different because there's no moral judgement in that position. If you refuse treatment for a condition, even a preventative one, then there's no moral imperative to offer a different treatment later. Doctors did their best to save you, but you didn't do your part. That's on you.

Absolutely not, that's not how it works. You won't be denied tramua treatment for a gunshot because your doc told you to stop playing with guns. You won't be refused heart medicine because you didn't stop eating bacon when your doctor told you to 5 years earlier. You won't be denied ER treatment because you were drunk when you crashed your car. There is no rule where we have to treat all patients equally (including m…

Your examples are not the same, you're presenting cause and treatment. The parent comment discussed one treatment over another: refusing preventive treatment over curative treament.

Problem is that there is not enough capacity for curative treatment only. In this case it would make sense to allocate some hospital capacity for people without vaccination, and more capacity for people that have been vaccinated (maybe in the same ratios as population vaccination).

And also allocate some hospital capacity for people with other diseases so they're not impacted by the fact that some people refuse vaccination.

Post reply on HN