First day in school. Are we in Germany 1933?

[andlondon]

(I believe my post will be removed, as there is no democracy here and all think like one, but I cannot keep silence anymore).

First day in school (online) after holiday. DD got the following problem to solve (and kids widely discuss it on a chat):

In a hospital ward there are four terminally ill people. Three need medicines that are not in stock and cannot be provided. Without the medicines they will die. The fourth will die anyway. The three can be saved with organ transplantation: first with heart, second with lungs, third with liver. What should be done: (a) nothing and then all four will die. (b) kill the fourth and transplant his organs to other three.

Have you seen the movie “Life Is Beautiful” 1997? In fascist Italy the school children were given a problem: ‘How much will the country save if they stop feeding the mentally ill?’

So our children in school are hinted with the following: the government will not lift a finger in order to produce masks, ventilators, protective equipment etc. We don’t need to think about this. We just need to decide: who will die and who will live. Whom to connect to ventilator and whom do disconnect. Whom to send to intensive care and whom to send home to die.

If this is not fascism then what is this?

The government and the prime minister did not lift a finger to close airports, to trace and isolate infected and to test people when the epidemy was already ravaging in four countries: China, South Korea, Japan, Italy. The government did nothing to produce ventilators, masks, hand gel, protective suits. How did South Korea and Japan manage to completely stop this? Why in Germany 4,500 dead and in UK 16,000?

Why the criminal government and its prime minister are not investigated and not sent to court for sabotaging the struggle with the epidemy, for the treason to their people, for 16,000 dead?
Why instead of saying that “We will struggle for every ill person and we will do anything to save lives” the prime minister says “Oh, you need to prepare yourself to loose many of your relatives and friends”? and why that prime minister ignores five meeting in a row of the COBRA (Emergency Cabinet)?

Why do we need, like the North Koreans, to clap to NHS - where doctors and nurses are not provided with basic equipment and die from the infection, whilst in other countries healthcare workers have all they need? Why do people clap to them like to clowns who dance under the circus dome without any protection?

Is human life valued at all in this country or we just need to say “Oh, I am so sorry that people die”? “Oh, it’s such a shame there are not enough masks”. “Oh, it such a shame people crowd outdoors without masks spreading virus and contributing to the death toll”.

But what can be done? Our country is so poor. We have no enough budget. We cannot produce masks. It is too hard for our industry. We cannot produce ventilators. We cannot produce virus test kits. We cannot produce hand gel. Our police is unable to dispense crowds. Out policemen don't have masks, equipment, cars. There are actually no policemen on the streets at all!

We could not close airports. Our airport workers don’t know how to do this. We could not deprive our citizens of the joy of going to ski in Italy and bringing the infection back with them, and we could not isolate them when they landed back in Heathrow/Gatwick. There are no isolation rooms there :( Such a shame!

So what can be done? Just nothing. It’s our fate. Let’s just choose whom to disconnect from the ventilator. And let's keep strolling outside - such a good weather! Perhaps some more elderly will get infected and die because we stroll outside, but come on! those elderly would have died anyway, right?

And let’s prepare to lose our relatives and friends. And don’t forget to say “sorry” on every occasion and in every direction, and clap to our brilliant government and the healthcare system.

BBC News: "Coronavirus: 'I'm the nurse who switches off the ventilator'

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52345177

She is the hero, who switches the people off. And where is the hero who builds the ventilators?

This isn't a Nazi Germany question, this is a real world modern day problem, albeit simplified as a theoretical philosophical problem, and the whole reason why NICE exists. What treatments give value for money? Is it worth spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on a drug treatment that will prolong someone's life for a few months, versus one hundred hip replacements that will massively improve quality of life for multiple people.

Well OP if life needs to be saved at all cost, what is your answer to the trolley problem?

In the real world there is a cost to everything and we all have to make choices every day. Voters need to choose between what politicians tell them is a possible vision of the future. Kids need the skills to critically think through whether what they're being told is realistic, feasible and matches their values.

Eg. If we stay locked down forever, we might save more lives from covid19 but we might run out of money to fund the NHS. Is that "fund the hospitals at all costs"?

It's medical ethics, covered in Philosophy and RE, amongst others. I teach a similar lesson on organ transplant.

er- but death is unavoidable. Ultimately. how does it help to teach them that everyone be saved? They can't. From CV, from cancer, from anything. Money doesn't convey immortality.

You're saying that we should teach that 'life should be saved at all costs' ??? Euthanasia ? Abortion ? The death penalty ? War ? All ethical issues. Not everyone is pro-life.

Death isn’t unavoidable. It may be postponed but it’s not unavoidable.
I think it’s an interesting question.
How old is your dd

Some people don't agree that life should be saved at all costs. In order for people to receive transplants, someone else must die. Death is not avoidable. It may be postponable.

Problems like this teach children to think, to look at things from all points of view, to consider different stances and differing approaches. To empathise- not just with the patients but with those treating then who are making such choices on a daily basis. There's a reason that so many surgeons have sociopathic tendencies- it's because you need to be able to discount emotion and squeamishness to slice into a fellow human, even when one is doing it for all the right reasons.

Or- what they all said ^

There was an article on the BBC earlier that I annoyingly now can't find or I would link it. It showed that deaths over the last month are far higher than average but only half a corona related. In throwing resources at corona, we already seem to have increased other deaths presumably where treatments have been delayed or where people haven't sought emergency treatment fast enough. Another real world ethical problem.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52361519

Here it is. Actually, it is far less than half the additional deaths, not due to corona, but a significant number nonetheless.

There's an episode of Grey's anatomy that we use in school where a child needs a life saving transplant and a convicted murderer is brought in to be treated for a brain tumour but says he doesn't want treating and offers his organs to save the child. The doctors have to treat the murderer though and the child dies. It promotes lots of discussion on what is the right thing to do.

Exactly guys! Same was in the movie “Life Is Beautiful” 1997 which unfortunately none of the responded here has seen

Presumptuous much.

Life should be saved at all cost. Equipment should be provided to the hospitals at all cost.

No it shouldn't. Have you heard the name Tony Bland? You should do some reading.

You could also look up, "balloon debate" it has similar principles.

I hate these questions. They're always ridiculously unrealistic.

Like, (leaving compatibility aside) depending on what the fourth person is going to die from 'anyway', whether their organs are actually suitable for transplant?

What if one or more of the other three wouldn't accept a transplant? (Although in reality, one suspects that more 'don't believe in' being an organ donor, than a recipient).

If this is being used in an RE lesson, OP, you can always withdraw your child from those classes, of course.
www.gov.uk/national-curriculum/other-compulsory-subjects

Guys, this post was not really about philosophical ethical questions and dilemmas whose life to save and whose not. The post was about the time when these questions are asked. The government in this country sabotaged tackling the epidemic. I don't want to repeat what I said before: not closing airports, not attending COBRA meetings, not wearing masks, not producing masks, ventilators, gel, costumes, supplies, allowing crowds on streets to spread the infection, ignoring advises of WHO... And on that background teaching kids those ethical questions whom to save and whom to kill sounds fascistic. You can ask these questions if you really do something to save life.

Medical staff deal with these issues all the time and if it's on the syllabus it has to be taught.

Well unless your DC's teacher is actually Boris Johnson then all those decisions about what to do aren't down to them.

@andlondon

life should be saved at all cost

I disagree. As will many others. I don't want my life to be saved at all cost any time. I've made it very clear that if I have a significant brain injury then I do not want to be ventilated, I do not want to be saved. I want to die peacefully.

I've seen Life Is Beautiful.
To answer part of your question.

It's a bit of a dilemma isn't it OP. On the one hand you are castigating the government for what you see as their moral and ethical failures in not taking action that you think would have halted the Covid 19 epidemic.

On the other hand you are decrying teaching the next generation that we they need to develop the skill of recognising and debating moral and ethical principles in order that future governments are better equipped to deal with issues that require critical thinking and a strong understanding of moral values.

Perhaps there's a handy moral pill they can take instead. [Advice from the Donald Trump School of Morals and Clear Thinking.]

Death can’t be avoided.
Postponed, obviously, but that’s often the least desirable outcome. I hope when my time comes I won’t be artificially kept going, in pain and against my will. Others have a different opinion, which they’re equally entitled to.

Nothing sinister about your daughter’s question, bog standard ethics.

Perhaps there's a handy moral pill they can take instead. [Advice from the Donald Trump School of Morals and Clear Thinking.]”

Oh do keep up with the science, viques! Pills? Haven’t you heard? Trump University is injecting disinfectant these days 😂

"Instead of teaching that death can be avoided with effort and diligence."

Why would you teach a falsehood? Death cannot be avoided. I've sat through many conversations where a doctor has said to patients "You need to get your affairs in order. We are taking days rather than weeks or months", or "There is nothing more we can do to fix this problem. Palliative care is useful and I'll refer you". "Sadly, we have done everything that we can do. Further surgery will kill you."

Death is not avoidable. A good death is the best that can be achieved, and then not always.

The problem above is very useful. In pragmatic terms, why waste good organs? Is it preferable to die with organs intact or to die in the cause of saving lives? On the other hand, in our country, it's illegal to kill someone for organs. It's why our donation rate is so low - there are very few circumstances where a beating heart donation can take place. The patient has to be on life support and declared brain dead, then all tests have to be good, and a recipient identified in the time frame before the patient deteriorates.

Lives must be saved at all cost is a ridiculous premise. Lives are already saved as much as possible, but it is morally wrong to try to save a life without some sort of hope that your attempt will be successful and the patient will have quality of life.

I think we may have kids at the same school OP. My 6 YO had the same homework.