Triage is an unfortunate reality for guys in my profession. I never really thought about the politics of it. You treat the people you're most likely to save. In a mass casualty situation, what good are heroic actions on a single casualty without a pulse when it will likely result in the deaths of multiple guys with traumatic amputations or wounds that result in rapid blood loss?
Is the "controversy" over this just a case of people never confronting reality? Note, I'm not sure you can even call it a controversy if I'm only seeing a "public health law expert" making a warning.
Docs list who would be allowed to die in a catastrophe
Public health law expert Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown University called the report an important initiative but also "a political minefield and a legal minefield."
The recommendations would probably violate federal laws against age discrimination and disability discrimination, said Gostin, who was not on the task force.
If followed to a tee, such rules could exclude care for the poorest, most disadvantaged citizens who suffer disproportionately from chronic disease and disability, he said. While health care rationing will be necessary in a mass disaster, "there are some real ethical concerns here."