Are humans too sympathetic towards the disabled? Or is it a just reason?
Take the h1n1 vaccine for example. In my community, it was first delivered to children with disabilities/elders. This is wrong in my opinion, and this is where my "cold heartedness" factor comes in. Thinking towards the future, who really deserves the vaccine? An extremely autistic person whom will most likely never amount to much, or a smart child, who may one day become a successful billionaire. Let's say that Child "A", a regular child, has not been vaccinated and receives h1n1. He later dies. At that same time, Child "B", a severely autistic kid whom has received the vaccine, is alive and well. Child "B" goes on with his life, sitting in his home day after day, until he dies of old age. Does that same fair? To me, it seems like a waste of life. I would rather have a living, healthy child than a living, autistic child; would you not say it's more beneficial?
The same example could be aimed towards elder. They have reached the final years of their lives most likely, so what does a few years slashed of make? Their healthy is deteriorating as is.
Sadly logic is not always moral, and morality is in most cases not logical. But there are plenty of other problems with the high risk list, like how some how natives are automatically high risk no matter how healthy they are, but that's a different story.
I believe that their belief behind delivering the vaccine to disabled, young, and elderly first, is that everyone else will probably live if they get H1N1. While those people would have a harder time fighting it off, so they need the vaccine.
Green's suggestion is correct. Those selected to receive the vaccine first were selected on a basis of who the H1N1 hits the hardest. Others don't suffer the same statistical difficulties fending it off.
Well, I do believe that you are being a bit harsh on the elderly or the mentally disabled; they can't help it, why should we punish them by giving them the vaccine last, even though they are the ones with a higher risk of catching it and a weaker immune system(in most cases) for fighting it? Although I do see your point... I think that they do garner our sympathy and that is part of why we administer vaccines to them first...however, as I have said, they are likely weaker than we are; thus they would have a harder time stopping a disease than an able bodied person, and therefore need the vaccine more than we do. However, you do have an excellent point. Simply put, they will likely not achieve anything in their life, or whatever's left of it. A healthy person has a much higher chance of doing something productive. However, everyone will get the vaccine eventually, so it's not too terrible. And by the way, just so you all know, I think the swine flu is a bunch of crap. I'm not saying it doesn't kill people, I'm just saying that the media and the government is making way too much of a hype over it. Every year, there is a new strain of flu. Every year, the flu kills people. But that does not mean that it is some kind of a mega pandemic crisis, OK? The swine flu has killed less people than many other diseases that we also do not have vaccines yet for. So don't get too worried about it. A lot of this is propaganda.
Whatever there doing is like, totaly selfish cause the flu keeps changing so you just stop it from spreading. The best way is just to treat the elderly cause if you don't, then they go to the hospital with the flu, which will get all those sick people sicker not to mention all the families that are visiting the sick people, and that will just give the flu a chance of changing into a stronger form. So there just keeping the elderly out of the hospital and that way the smart kids don't die is what I was trying to say!
. Child "B" goes on with his life, sitting in his home day after day, until he dies of old age. Does that same fair? To me, it seems like a waste of life.
i cant believe you just said that. Theres no such thing as a waste of life
Anyways, i've thought about this before, and here's what I came up with. Yes, mentally disabled persons are a burden on society, but they do serve a purpose. One, their parents/family still loves them, giving that family something to care for all of their lives. Many parents long to be with their children longer, with an autistic kid, you get that wish. Secondly, it's another moral that we uphold, helping others.
Everyone's equal,
People are not equal in abilites. They are however equal in the right to live, to be happy and to be free. Let's say your religious, you can't say that every murderer and rapist is equal to jesus christ.
Often times, the differentiation between reasonable and unreasonable is emotion. In nature, a disabled person would be left to die or eaten because they did not know any better or could not do anything to stop it. We are human though, and thus we defy nature. Here is how to define us. Everything but the human race is cold hearted but reasonable, and we are but a rock in the ever flowing flood of death and despair, valliantly trying in vain to fight against the universe so that we can say we did it, we defied what nothing else could, we defeated death and annulled all despair and suffering. Our efforts are what make us unreasonable, but it also defines what we stand for.
Theres no such thing as a waste of life Oh really, then what do you call Hitler?
You cant seriously be using hitler? I thought about hitler when i posted that, thinking someone would use that. Hitler, nor anyone, is a waste of life. I call hitler an evil person, but everyone has their purposes.
YEah I don't get it eaither.Since child B was going to die without the swine flu I don't see why they have to get it first and then child A dies because of that.Deos'nt seem right since everyone should be treated equel.
I guess no noe read my other post or whatever so I rewrote it to be clearer.
You have a healthy child A that gets sick from the flu but doesn't die. You have a elderly woman who will die if she gets sick. You have a disabled child B who will die if they get the flu. OK? So if they treat the healthy child then the elderly woman and the disabled child B dies from the swine flu, that's wrong! So what happens when they treat the elderly woman and the disabled child B? Then no one dies. That's right. Why? Because when the healthy child A gets sick they just stay home from school for a day but whenever the elderly woman or the disabled child B get the flu, than they have to go to the hospital were they spread the flu so this makes the other sick patients evern sicker. Also, all there families are visiting, so the families get sick besides and the hospital ends up spreading the flu around. So that's why they treat the people who would otherwise die from the flu because it saves everyone! So doing the moral thing is also doing the selfish thing.
