COVID-19 - Would It Work to Allow People to Sign Away Rights for Treatment Like JW's Do for Blood? (page 2)

FedUpJW

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

And of course when smokers choose to put themselves at risk you would be fine if they refuse any treatment for lung cancer, right?

LongHairGal

RUB A DUB:

This ‘opening the economy up’ is unfortunately a damned-if-you-do OR damned-if-you-don’t situation!..I hardly think DT is urging people to riot 🙄.

I agree that it should be done carefully, but it DOES have to happen. We cannot all hibernate for the next three months! Maybe celebrities with mansions and storehouses of food can do this, but not everybody else.

Already the meat industry is being disrupted! If this were to continue there would really be empty shelves in supermarkets. There’d be nothing to clean out...THEN there would be a breakdown of social order which doesn’t always hold itself together very well even under the best circumstances. (THEN you’ll see rioting and loss of life!) If this happens..it will be hard to bounce back from!

Businesses are suffering and people are unemployed and I don’t believe they’re ALL even going to get their jobs back!! Even with some things opening soon, this will still be a mess with a lot of troubled people around.

Of course, we want our most vulnerable to be protected - but we have to start somewhere!

RubaDub

And of course when smokers choose to put themselves at risk you would be fine if they refuse any treatment for lung cancer, right?

FedUpJW ...

There is a huge difference here. Doctors, nurses and the support staffs don't get lung cancer, liver disease or whatever treating people who have willfully abused their bodies.

That is not the same with CONVID-19. You check into a hospital and you have put everyone from the first responders to the cleaning people in the hospital at risk of death, not to mention the doctors and nurses.

That was my original point.

Rub a Dub

WTWizard

We should have the right to protest peacefully (under the constitution). We should take reasonable precautions to prevent spread of diseases, and not just this coronavirus. Do you wish to go to a large gathering to contract tuberculosis instead? Or hepatitis C? Or typhoid? As for comparing to other dangerous lifestyles, we already have laws against drink driving. We have the right to drink, and I will not judge someone for drinking. But, drink driving--you do not have that right. Neither do we have the right to recklessly spread diseases in the name of protest.

And yes, having more signage and props allows more distance between protesters or between protesters and the public. Last I knew, you cannot spread diseases using bullhorns and picket signs--and it is possible to have a mask that encourages patriotism and adherence to the constitution. For instance, a mask that is red, white, and blue and that comes with a placard with your message--and a microphone connected to a bullhorn that broadcasts your speech. That would make more sense than deliberately and recklessly defying means to limit spread of disease.

On the other hand, I feel that it is worth some increase in disease transmission to prevent communism. Which will kill far more people than coronavirus, or even tuberculosis, can. And the risks of allowing communism are far worse. With coronavirus, there is a good chance of not even getting sick and another good chance that it will be just like a cold. Yes, you could transmit it to someone else that will die from it. But, if they use it as a blind to institute 5G, RFID chips, and total communism, there is no chance for anyone to have no or mild impact. Everyone will be seriously impacted, and most will die from it. Including those who would have died from the coronavirus, which means you protected no one.

Simon

You have to admit though, the models have been wrong and we should be reconsidering how much things are locked down. At some point the cure is going to be worse than the disease, and more will die as a result.

Some are being completely over-zealous with the lockdowns and enforcement and I think it's right to protest the over-reach.

BlackPuddingEater

Refusing medical treatment is your right and unfortunately this does get used by some to rack up martyr points for their petulant godchild.

I would like to put forward the premise that while you or I can be treated for the coronavirus our societies need to be treated for the pandemic. If you wave all rights to treatment and by your action make yourself a high risk individual then you are working against curing society. So for individual self governance as you suggest I would argue that no society would willingly allow that sort of contract.

However should communities who could isolate themselves be allowed make a group opt out and be allowed to socialise as they wish within that group? Now you decide, do you want to live with the barn raising hat wearing beardies or the pot smoking free loving beardies. Nether have NetFlix!

Scully

Any adult of sound mind can refuse medical treatment for themselves. Hospitals have forms for this type of thing. However, in the case of COVID-19, I would hope refusal of treatment would be accompanied by strict quarantine orders to not leave their home, or being segregated with other idiots, away from the rest of us who want to be safe for the benefit of our loved ones and other people at risk.

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