I want to spark a little discussion here and get a gauge for peoples' opinions.


If a man is in the hospital and is in enough pain to not want to live anymore, what should the doctor/hospital do? Should they keep him alive as long as possible against his will or should they let him die?

Also, what if there is a vaccination for a disease, but not enough for everyone? What goes into deciding who gets the vaccine and who will eventually die? (assuming they WILL get sick and die from the disease if they're not vaccinated)

Morally, not legally.

1. Well, according to the law, too damn bad. The hospital isnt allowed to kill you, or let you die, I dont think.

2. Whoever has the money.

You're talking about euthanasia, right? I think the rules for that differ between places.

Morally. Not legally.

Oh, morally. Hrm. Well, morally, if there's nothing that can be done for the patient any more, I say mercy killing. Put said person to sleep with some anesthetic. Nice and quiet and all. As for the second one, medicine should ideally go to women and children.

__________________
"Be the leaf." ~Meelo

Sorry Baroque, I ninja'd you there accidentally. I was referring to morally instead of legally. I forgot to clarify in the OP.

This is what I thought too, but if a lot of the population gets wiped out, who will forage for food? The women will more than likely be caught up in raising the children.

Forage for food? Its a disease not an A-Bomb. You realize we've had pandemics like that before, right?

__________________
"Be the leaf." ~Meelo

"assuming they WILL get sick and die from the disease if they're not vaccinated"

I think that if every person who does not receive the vaccine dies, it would but a huge damper on the food industry. Especially if the majority of the people who receive it are children.

Women also work in the food industry. I'm sure we have women farmers. Besides, the OP doesn't say how many vaccines there is. For all we know, only the old people will have to die.

__________________
"Be the leaf." ~Meelo