Dismiss it? Of course not. If it weren't for precedence, I'd agree with all of it. There are so many other things humans do everyday of their lives, without the barest hint of a thought for others, that endanger those around them. Tricycles, smokers, people that drive at all when they're bad at it, driving noxious fume emitting vehicles, driving gas guzzlers, buying from companies that pollute our world, polluting our world, taking more than their fair share of wealth, eating too much, and the list goes on ad nauseum. Yes, yes, we can make a case that there are protections from some of these things, but few that make you directly choose your risk, and the risk of your family, as you seem to propose. I'm vaccinated. I made that choice. Sure, not to protect myself from COVID, more to insulate myself from bureaucratic risk, but I am vaccinated all the same. I mask up when needed or directed to and I have never been a person to cough or sneeze on others. When people ask me about getting vaccinated, I advise them to do exactly that. I hold the line at having our government, or any government, force them to do so. Everyone alive should have the right to assess their risk and act accordingly. To suggest otherwise is to support fascism.
Yes, assuming anything, to force others to do something else, is wrong. For me personally, assuming is a day to day way of life. Others assumptions bear no weight. She doesn't get to assess my risk and make a determination for me. Long effects of vaccination should give anyone pause.
Interesting. I never thought I'd see you argue for turning away the sick (which I've certainly supported if we went to a one payer system), but I guess words matter more to some than actions. I don't think what you've written is an argument against what I wrote, but it is revealing. Thank you.
I'll leave you with this link so you can reassess your posture. https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/tommy-hilfiger-racism-scandal/
When a person is being attacked because he states the right of people to make individual choices and is made to feel like he is an anti-vaxxer (a term being very much misused on this Forum) but points out that he actually DID have the vaccine way back (and I think he started the thread 'Vaccination' with the news) then he has the right to point out he was one of the first to be vaccinated. The same I think as a scientist being told here that because he is cautious about vaccination with rushed vaccines, about which there is no long-term evidence available, he does not understand science (he does, but he is just not good at knowing things which have not yet happened - I think in common with most, if not all, of the World's population, minus the oddball time travellers).
It is almost like they skip through the parts of the study that disagree with them, most pointedly the part stating, "further study is necessary to determine long term results, but our preliminary findings are" just so they can win the internet for the day. I am NOT a scientist, but I am the absolute, world leading expert, indisputably, on my life and how to assess risk within it. I'll let the sanctimonious types argue I shouldn't have that right all they want, but I won't remain silent.
Should we give alcoholics the same priority to liver transplants that we do everyone else? Should a smoker be given priority lung transplant over a non-smoker? Should a heart transplant go to a 400lbs person or a child born with a heart defect? Assuming the same injuries should we prioritize care for the drunk driver or the victim of the drunk driver? We shouldn't prioritize medical resources (when they are in short supply) to those that have made poor decisions. "In 2012, Hilfiger spoke about the financial ramifications as the featured guest on Fern Mallis' 92Y Fashion Icons' series. "It hurt for a long period of time, not from a business standpoint, because our business doubled in that time," Hilfiger said. "It went from $1 billion to $2 billion in that time. But it hurt here [placing hand on his heart]." Aww, poor Tommy boy. His business doubled in size due to some false accusations. I feel bad that he was sitting in his Ferrari wiping his tears with $100 bills.
What you're saying is, you'd have your corpse left outside of a hospital in favor of someone else. I admire your self sacrifice, even if I can't admire the decision itself. Good on you. Doctors take an oath to do no harm and could potentially lose their license for refusing to aid. Is that a risk they should be allowed to take, or should they be made to perform at gunpoint? I am sad to see so many willing to watch others die that don't agree with them. Despising the wealthy...I'm glad you aren't a person that some in your area would view as rich, and share your same view. Libel is an actual criminal offense and I'm sure Tommy's lawyers could argue he would have made more had he not been left to the dogs of social justice.
If I went to the hospital as a corpse they should definitely prioritize other people. But yes, I accept that my decisions have consequences and I should not be on top of any donor lists if those decisions were the cause of any organ failure. Would it suck for me? Yes. Would I have regrets and hate that I made those decisions? Almost certainly. Would I want others to suffer because of my decisions? Absolutely not. It also mentions: There is no single oath doctors take. Prioritizing care is part of their job. Do you have a problem with alcoholics being thrown at the bottom of liver transplant lists? Are doctors breaking their oath for identifying those people and refusing to prioritize them? I don't despise the wealthy. No, it is a civil offense in the US. Maybe. Maybe not. You have to prove damages to be awarded them in defamation cases. I see no proof of that. Since this exact thing has happened to other designers I'm going to guess it isn't the social justice crowd doing it. Sounds more like a competitor in the fashion industry trying (and failing) to bring them down. Also, I wasn't talking about the falsely accused. There are plenty of people these days getting caught on video saying and doing reprehensible things. These are the people I am taking about. Saying "but look at this person who was falsely accused" is not a valid argument and doesn't address what I was saying.
