Business man tends his hand to save a person drowning
Have been pondering the terrible—yet somewhat scintillating—question of “who to save” that a growing number of doctors and health professionals have been forced to consider, what with the seeming scarcity of ventilators. (“If either Joe or Mary get a ventilator, they each could live. If either one doesn’t get a ventilator, they probably won’t live. Alas, I only have one ventilator.”)
What criteria are these doctors or medical personnel using to make such a lose-lose decision? I would warn right away against simply using age as the primary criteria. Except for kids, of course. Any kid under 21 should get priority for life-saving supplies.
But how about those over eighty? Seventy? Sixty? I would suggest that age is not a valid criteria for who gets a ventilator and who doesn’t. (And it’s not just because my face is wrinkled and my hair is white.) Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling published more scientific breakthroughs papers in the decade between his 70th and 80th year than in any decade previously. How about the kid on death row? He’s only twenty six.
Severity of condition, of course, and underlying co-occurring conditions, enter into the dialogue. But how about strength of bank account? Address (or lack thereof?) Race? Political affiliation? Season ticket holders?
It would be best, of course, not to be required to make such a decision in the first place, where doctors and medical personnel are deciding who gets life-saving assistance and who doesn’t. I anticipate, as explained in a previous post, that the supply of ventilators is going to rapidly increase in the weeks and months ahead. Sometime soon, let us hope and anticipate, the question of who to save and who not to save will be taken off the table.
In the meantime…
Okay, if our family boat sank and there was only one life raft and my wife and kids and grandkids could fit in but adding one more chubby old guy would sink them all… yes, of course, I’d dog-paddle. Or try to, If it was a choice between me and my immediate loved ones as to who would get the ventilator, I’d like to think it would be an easy, obvious choice. (I say this while sitting fat and sassy, feeling spunky, symptom-free on a quarantined quiet afternoon. Things and opinions could change.)
But I’ve had a mostly fun, fruitful and blessed long life. I’m not afraid to be dead—my research has me confident about what comes next. But I confess, the actual dying part, that part that comes before I’m dead, before I drop the mortal coil, has me a little nervous. But bottom line: better me dead than my family. I assume this same “theoretical” decision about who goes, who stays, is the same for most parents, grandparents.
But let’s get down to brass tacks. Ideally, who should we save, who shouldn’t we?
There are those who argue we should save those who have the largest “to- do” list. Both long term and short term to-do lists—to do this week, this month, and this decade. Those with the most still left “to-do,” should be saved first. These are the movers and shakers, so the argument goes, with ambition, who get things done. Age does not figure in, at least not much.
And we could/should prioritize those who have a written to-do list. Part of the in-take at the hospital could then be, “We need a copy of your to-do list, please.”
For those who have such a written list, and their list is long, their gurney would move to the front of the line. Those who lack such a list, well . . .
For a higher, more benign argument, coming from the other side, we might say those who have the longest “to do” list deserve to go to the front of the line simply because these folks have not yet learned life’s basic lesson, which this pandemic is teaching (again) to citizens across the globe. The lesson is: Not a single one of us knows how many days (weeks, months, years) we have left, pandemic or no. So let’s be happy with the one’s we’re with; be happy with the day we’re living; be happy with the chores we’re doing. Right here. Right now. This is life. Let’s relax into it. Enjoy the fullness here expressing itself (Himself, Herself.)
Long to-do list people have maybe not learned this lesson of living in the moment, being happy in the moment, to the depth they might, so they need more time here in this earth-school we’re all attending. At least, that’s one side of the argument.
The other side . . .
There are those who argue that those with the longest “to-do” lists are those creating the most mischief. Lawyers, for example, almost always have long to-do lists. As do politicians (many of whom are lawyers.) And get-rich quick schemers and sneaky folks often have long to-do lists.
Maybe we should just save those folks who have learned their basic lessons—learned to love, be happy and at peace with the moment’s unfolding. Maybe heaven on earth would come more quickly if just the happy people were saved. If someone comes to the hospital with a long to-do list, maybe they should be put at the back of the line.
But of course, brass tacks: we want to save all our brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, cousins, friends, neighbors and co-workers, whether their to-do lists are long or short or non-existent, whether they are happy or grumpy. So let’s get those tens of thousands of ventilators rolling off the factory floors, and the testing kits and the tracking infrastructure in place. (This is how we corral, and eventually slay this dragon: 1. Test; 2. Track; 3. Treat.)
No doc, or health worker, should ever be forced into deciding who gets help, who doesn’t. Thankfully, for the most part, people here and around the world are moving forcefully and en mass to make such questions (who to save) questions of the past.
May that day come soon. I assume working towards that day, that state, is on everyone’s to do list for today.
Breathe deep, friends, love deep, then do—or don’t do– whatever is appropriate. It’s a new day, here on earth. Let’s make the best of it.
