Deleted message

[Name removed]

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stupdworld]

1. the point at which

the child says to hell with waiting for Halliburton Hospital, and goes to strap on a bomb and head for the nearest humvee.

[zoidberg]

2. At the point that we are actually diverting funds

It's very improbable that this President and Congress would fund children's healthcare in the US at a higher if not for the war and rebuilding in Iraq. So at this point I don't we've entered the realm of allocating scarce resources between an American kid and an Iraqi kid. The United States is nowhere close to the point where a hospital wouldn't treat a poor, uninsured child who was in a car accident.

But if the federal government did have to make that decision, I would say provide for the Iraqi kid. We have a unique obligation to provide for the people of Iraq. I would say moreso at this point than its obligation to provide for its own citizens. Hopefully that will change soon and the Iraqis can start taking care of themselves. Further justification can be found in the fact that charity and locally funded public hospitals are much better equiped to care for a sick child in the US than in Iraq. If we are to allocate resources based on need, there is little question that the need is greater there.

[JPace]

3. "I would say provide for the Iraqi kid."

I think if the American child being denied care
were your child.....you might decide differently.

[zoidberg]

4. Sure I would...

But given a random Iraqi kid and a random American kid, the federal government should take care of the Iraqi kid. A kid in a car accident in the US is likely to receive decent medical care even if the federal government doesn't step in. The same probably isn't the case in Iraq.

[Guaranteed]

9. Don't we also have a unique obligation to provide for

our own children?

On edit: I mean, why moreso the Iraqis? Our own children's troubles are no one's fault but our own.

[maha]

5. Ultimately, it's an artificial choice.

In the grand scheme of things, if you want to take care of children you support their parents and the societies in which they live.

If the Iraqi child is sick and cannot get medical help, it's mostly because of a long, long string of political decisions going back decades, resulting in a broken country and parents without the resources to take care of their children.

There is nothing "ethical" about choosing one child's needs over another's. The only ethical choice is to be aware of the damage we are doing in the pursuit of political agendas, and to stop doing it.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sistersofmercy]

6. Well, since there are several reports of US soldiers receiving medical

tx in situations involving US soldiers and Iraqi civilians including women and children caught in the crossfire who did not receive timely medical tx and died on the streets, I would have to say this is purely an academic argument. Providing shelter to the homeless might be a better debate.

[KG]

7. why does US gotta pay the bill?

i was told there were 100+ members of the 'coalition of the willing'. other than a 'atta boy', what else have those countries contributed.

i say it's time to pass the hat, get those fucks to pony up! :grr:

edit to add - no ethical dilemmas are simple - that's why they are dilemmas. :)