[ExI] Decision-making under scarcity/was Re: Charity

[Dan]

On Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:16:26 AM Stathis Papaioannou stathisp at gmail.com wrote:
>> And my point was that there's no clear line between elective
>> and non-elective. It's arbitrary -- even if clinicians, bureaucrats,
>> insurers, patients, you, me, and the Great Spaghetti Monster
>> might agree that someone bleeding with a deep gash in his
>> neck is clearly on the non-elective side of the line. Under a
>> true voluntary system here -- i.e., one where there's no
>> coercive interference -- the decisions would made, IMO, in
>> the best fashion because there'd no third party coercively
>> entering the relationship to impose its view of what should
>> be done.
>
> So who would make that decision, if you're bleeding and I'm
> having a heart attack, and there aren't enough facilities to
> treat both of us at once?

I don't know, but we'll miss you. Just kidding! :)

Seriously, this type of problem doesn't decide the issue. After all, such a decision would have to be made under any system where there're scarce resources -- here, facilities or medical professionals -- and a quick decision has to be made. Or do you think a voluntary system would always or more often than not make the worse choice while a coercive one would not?

Regards,

Dan