PLEASE HELP! need cases for and against.?

Question

The hospitals in Australia are over crowded & there are waiting lists. 1 person suggests that people with lung cancer should be the last 2 be treated. He says "its their fault, why should other people have 2 suffer". Prepare a report outlining cases for and against this person. can anyone come up with arguments for and against. This is homework.

Help is much appreciated!

Answer 1

On being treated last: Lung cancer patients knew the risks involved with smoking when they took up the habit, therefore they should not be treated before a patient with a condition that they did not voluntarily bring upon themselves. Unfortunate diseases and random accidents happen every day to unsuspecting people and they should not have to wait longer than someone who deliberately put their health in jeopardy.

On being treated equally: Who is really qualified to decide who should get treatment for being sick regardless of the illness? If a doctor can deny a patient prompt treatment for cancer due to smoking, can he then decide to postpone the care of a heart disease patient who is obese? Or a person with broken bones from skateboarding? What about a person with ulcers or diabetes from poor diet?* All of those conditions are a direct result of the decisions made by the patient, and if you think about it, most medical conditions are. And like smoking, it is reasonable to believe that those patients knew beforehand that over eating, skateboarding, and unhealthy diet all have their significant risks (*just examples for the sake of argument). Doctors are there to treat sick people, not to pick and choose who deserves care the most based on how much they earned their ailment.

Good luck!

Answer 2

I'm not going to do your homework for you, but common sense should dictate that cancer victims should be given priority. Why is it their fault? I suppose the idea is that smoking is what brought on their disease. However, there are many known cases of lung cancer in people who have never smoked. So that argument flies out the window. I would have to know the condition of the others on the waiting list to prioritize. However, cancer is life-threatening and deadly, so I would opt for them to be treated as opposed to someone with an ingrown toenail, for example, which is painful but does not affect survival. Therefore, it's impossible to give you an argument for that person. He's probably the one with the ingrown toenail, for want of further information.

Answer 3

Well you can make many arguments,

For: Do all the patients smoke, or have ever smoked?-They are tons of cases of lung cancer with neither.

Should a reformed alcoholic be denied treatment for liver problems etc, do to past behaviors? If so, why even treat the casual drinker? Wouldn't that be the same hypocrisy?

Answer 4

for against you could say that sometimes lung cancer is not the victims fault. With second hand smoke everywhere they could easily get it and it wouldn't be their fault.
Also why should people with lung cancer be last? What if someone who just has a cold walks in, should they be treated first?

Answer 5

i know someone who died of lung cancer at 38 and she NEVER smoked. also their are people who smoke their entire lives and never get lung cancer. i'm sure at one point in everyones life they have done something where they could be judged - not buckling up - having unsafe sex - being over weight - experimenting with drugs but does that mean they should be judged by hospitals/doctors and nott get the medical attention they need because they made a mistake?maybe Australia needs to build more hospitals.

Answer 6

I can see that argument.... But if you say that because it is their fault... then the argument starts to fall apart, because what about the people who are terminally ill? They know that they are going to die, so should we also put them at the bottom of the list and give those who have a chance at life to live longer at the top? Tough call.