Volunteer medic group rejects treating terrorists and victims equally

[azurnoir]

The ZAKA voluntary emergency service organization said on Thursday that it would not abide by a directive from the Israel Medical Association instructing doctors and medics to triage all casualties at a terror scene according to the severity of their wounds — including the terrorists who carried out the attack.

In a statement, ZAKA chairman and founder Yehuda Meshi-Zahav made it clear that the organization’s medics would turn their attention to the victims first, regardless of the injuries sustained by their attacker.

"We direct ZAKA volunteers to first treat the Jewish victims of a terror attack — without blinking an eye,” he said. “Only after they have been given medical assistance, should they begin treating the murderous terrorist who carried out the attack.”

“In spite of the ethical code that says one should treat the most severely injured first, one should know that even morality has its boundaries,” Meshi-Zahav added. “If we do not make this distinction, we lose our direction. Even in Jewish law it says, ‘He who is merciful to the cruel will end up being cruel to the merciful.'”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/volunteer-medic-group-rejects-treating-terrorists-and-victims-equally/

[Jefferson23]

1. Because they can tell who is an who is not the terrorist? The world gets more entrenched

with contempt for life against the other...sigh.

[oberliner]

2. What if there was a way to tell?

If, hypothetically, one could tell immediately who the terrorist was and who the victim was, would you agree that the most severely wounded ought to be treated first even if that person is the terrorist or do you think the victims should be treated before the terrorist(s)?

[Jefferson23]

3. Is there something about their ethical code they're suppose to uphold you have

a problem with?

My second comment in my first post sums up my opinion on this subject.

[leftynyc]

7. Sorry

If one of them obviously has a suicide vest on - we know he's not one of the victims. While not everything is black and white, sometimes things are, indeed, black and white.

[oberliner]

8. I am just thinking about this question

If there was let's say a suicide bomber and the bombing attempt went somewhat awry and the bomber survived but was severely wounded, should that person be treated before one of his victims who is less severely wounded?

Taking the I/P conflict out of the equation, I find it an interesting question to ponder.

[Jefferson23]

9. I don't believe there is anything to ponder, that's the problem here. When your ethical

code goes astray, it's gone..period.


My statement earlier had nothing to do with I/P..doesn't matter which people we're
talking about.

[oberliner]

10. I disagree

I think one's code of ethics can change over time - and change back again.

[Jefferson23]

11. Human beings as history has proven can rationalize ANYTHING.

That's what you're seeing here.

[leftynyc]

12. Again with the black

And white. That's not reality and frankly if they took care of the dude/dudette with the vest on, I would be disgusted at their priorities. Take care of the ones who weren't trying to blow up everyone around them. Let the one who was looking for paradise and virgins have their way until the innocent are taken care of.

[leftynyc]

4. My instinct is to find them lacking

in fulfilling their oath. But I suspect they've seen things the rest of us haven't. Children with their limbs blown off, women dead clutching their children....I don't feel I'm in a position to judge them. Especially when dealing with someone who blew themselves up - they wanted to die anyway. Let them get to paradise and their virgins.

[King_David]

5. Yes I agree with you. nt

[6chars]

16. What exactly is their oath?

Do no harm? I don't see how treating the victims and then the terrorists fails to fulfill an oath. They are not even refusing to treat terrorists, only seeing to their victims first.

As a practical matter, if the terrorists do not want to have to wait for treatment, they should not commit terror. That way, they wouldn't have to wait for the victims to be treated first and they wouldn't be injured either.

My apologies to the posters who are more moral people than me and who would prioritize the medical care of murderous terrorists over the care of their victims.

[leftynyc]

17. No need for apologies

and I don't consider anyone who thinks treating those who WANT to die before the actual victims is moral moral than either of our opinions. I suspect if it was a family member or friend of those who think they have the moral high ground getting hurt by terrorists, their position would change in a fucking heartbeat. Their hypocrisy knows zero bounds.

[Mosby]

6. Treat the victims first

That's the moral and ethical thing to do imo.

[Little Tich]

13. What a disgusting group of people.

However, I prefer to see them as thoroughly misguided, and perhaps they can be taught about the basic ethics of the medical profession.

[leftynyc]

14. It's disgusting to

attend to others with injuries before the terrorist? It's not like they're leaving the terrorist in the street and going for a snack - which is what you're making it sound like. Not that I'm surprised in the slightest.

[Little Tich]

15. The ethical standards of the medical profession in Israel are as high as those of any other country.