COVID-19 - Would It Work to Allow People to Sign Away Rights for Treatment Like JW's Do for Blood?

RubaDub

People want to get back to work, back to "normal" in many cases (whatever normal now means). Even Trump is encouraging protesters in 3 States.

But with the COVID-19 thing, this is not just a matter of a person taking a risk, as a person may do who smokes, takes illegal drugs or in other ways lives an unhealthy lifestyle. In general, most (not all, since cost of insurance and public hospitals may be involved), but generally you are not putting the lives of others at risk. This includes first responders, hospital workers, nurses, doctors, etc. Every day we see that some of these people get seriously ill or die, leaving families behind.

So would it work if people who want to take risks to just sign a legal document that they will refuse medical treatment if infected? JW's sign the blood documents refusing that treatment. Open the bars, nightclubs, restaurants, gyms, whatever. Just sign a medical waiver and take your chances. Just don't put others at risk.

Rub a Dub

sir82

I don't follow. Your post outlines the danger that people put others in when they ignore the social distancing guidelines.

How does my signing a waiver refusing medical treatment, then going out to work, protect the dozens or hundreds of other people I might infect?

RubaDub

I'm just saying that I will not go to the hospital if I get the virus and possibly infect others.

If I put myself in danger, I am agreeing not to expect treatment.

JW's do it all the time with the blood issue.

Rub a Dub

sir82

Still not following - if I choose not to go to the hospital, why do I need to sign a waiver first saying "I will not go to the hospital"? I just won't go.

As noted, it simply is not a matter of "putting myself in danger". I could be one of the 10%? 20%? 50% of people who can be asymptomatic carriers of the virus. If I go to a "nightclub, restaurant, gym, whatever", I could very easily infect dozens or hundreds of other people if I'm infected and don't know it.

I think I kind of see where you're coming from, and if it really were an issue of "I'm willing to put myself in danger" I might agree, but that is not the case. My going out endangers the lives of many other people, waiver or no waiver.

Giordano

No they can't sign a legal document that absolves you from putting your family, friends and co workers at risk. What the hell are you talking about?

How could you not put families and friends at risk if you sit in a bar? Bowl a few rounds with friends and buddies? Attend a church..... breath the same air as others.

Show up at an idiot protest and stand around with people telling you how you have rights.

A lack of a blood transfusion just damages you.....not your family's health.

This is an active killing virus that a person who has no idea that they are carrying that virus can spread to others.

You bring that shit home and your people are at risk and can die.

This is what we are dealing with. We are individually responsible for spreading this..... if we are reckless............

Think about driving a car.......... there are a hundred different issues to deal with .....which is why it's not left up to you to decide which rules you will obey.

Your car has to be inspected for working brakes and pollution control.

Safety Belts, Stop signs, Red lights, turning signals. Children warnings on resident streets. Places you can not take when it's one way traffic or no access roads.

We accept these laws because they represent the smart and safe way to drive.

Their is no amendment rights that allows you to infect the larger population with a viral

disease.

RubaDub

sir82, giordano ...

I see that I didn't present my argument coherently.

I totally agree that you can infect others. I was just trying to explain that engaging in what we feel is dangerous behavior now could/should have repercussions. People are protesting to open things up and "get back to normal." I get it. But if it involves putting others in danger, then I am definitely against it.

But politicians are getting squeezed by many to open things back up. I was just presenting a point of view that if people insist on engaging in dangerous behavior, at least make them aware that they may not receive medical treatment for it since it is putting a lot of other people at risk.

With families, just like second hand smoke, it is hard to force behavior inside ones own home in our society.

Rub a Dub

Simon

So you're saying that people who are irresponsible and put others at risk, are going to be responsible in signing a document to limit healthcare given to themselves? I thought we'd already established they are selfish assholes?

Things will open up and people will take the risk as the risk diminishes (more people have built up herd immunity, the health-care systems can cope etc...)

sir82

politicians are getting squeezed by many to open things back up

I disagree with "by many".

There are a handful of protests by a few dozen yahoos at various state capitals. It's getting way too much oxygen from breathless media coverage.

Video of goobers walking around with misspelled cardboard signs, chanting nonsense, makes for bright shiny images that look good on a TV newscast that boosts ratings.

The governor of Georgia plans on "opening up" gyms & bowling alleys next week. Let's see if "many" people start streaming in, desperate to wear sweaty shoes that other people just finished wearing, and to stick their fingers into holes.

RubaDub

I disagree with "by many".

sir82 ...

Maybe the media makes the number of protesters appear greater than what they are.

Buy it starts at the top. Trump has fomented much of this by his tweets, and I quote; 'Liberate Minnesota", "Liberate Michigan", "Liberate Virginia."

Yes, I do agree that there were, as you say, "Video of goobers walking around with misspelled cardboard signs, chanting nonsense ..."

Rub a Dub

sir82

Oh it definitely starts at the top.

Odd that states with Republican governors, with identical restrictions, don't need to be "liberated".

COVID-19 - Would It Work to Allow People to Sign Away Rights for Treatment Like JW's Do for Blood?

Share this