Triage is a dirty word nowadays, as is the "Fatman and trolley"-question. Students simply can't handle the level of abstract thought needed to first choose an answer and then analyse both the answer in detail, following the logic to see where it leads, and take a third person look at their own emotional responses and reactions.
It's not that they balk at the horror of a 'Sophie's choice', it's that they simply can't. They lack the intelligence, moral fortitude and humble humility before inevitable situations necessary to make such decisions, even in theory or exercises.
Instead, they deflect, rationalise, become hysteric or angered, or take refuge in buzz word salad as magic formulae to ward off "evil".
People with such limited intellects can ever only be followers as they have been conditioned with a virtually physical slave reflex.
You touch on important topics: ethics, the need to make hard decisions and (alas) to recognize that not all problems can be solved; they can (at best) be managed. Some situations are a Hobson's Choice, damned if you do, damned if you don't. In other words, no clear alternative. But the real sin is that many difficult issues that DO have optimal (not to say ideal!) solutions are not addressed simply because of social, political or other opposition to solving them.
Oh yes, and that a lot of our cherished democratic, moral and religious ideals are bullshit; or to be more fair perhaps, a lot of them quickly break down in extreme circumstances. Many moralists assert that the same morals, ethics and standards should apply in all times in all places. As a counter-argument, I would ask them if they would really demand that in a foxhole in combat as compared to a Sunday afternoon picnic in the park? I'd say not.
To borrow the analogy from the famous essay "Lifeboat Ethics" (short and highly recommended), most of our institutions in the West seem to honestly believe that all comers are welcome and equally entitled to be rescued and given a place on the lifeboat. The very idea that seating is limited and that trying to please everybody will kill everybody, is anathema and the mere mention of it is harshly punished. At least as applied to medicine, we may be approaching a point where the individual will figuratively be better off floating alone in his life vest or even treading water.
Older generations had to struggle and strive for a better life, so had to make choices, some difficult and do things you didn’t like but had to. For example, your first job might be a real pig, low paid, but you did it because it was ‘a start’ while you gained experience and found something better. In those times there was no welfare and you were expected to work, not ponce off your parents… well, they wouldn’t let you nor could they afford to anyway. Nowadays, nobody must struggle or strive, or do a job they don’t like the State will provide or your nice middle class parents will.
I think you also describe critical analysis and this has to be taught - not as a subject per se but children early on have to learn to think about things, get more information, ask questions, make comparisons, comprehend and interpret what they see/hear. When I learnt English, essay writing was called ‘comprehension’, where we were given a poem, passage from a play, newspaper article or a picture and we had to write an essay about it. What the meaning was, the nuances or if pictorial what we thought was happening in the scene both from what we saw and could imagine. I recall we would be given the first line of a poem, then had to write a story based on that. As I understand it, that kind of teaching went out of fashion in the 1970s. Children no longer need to use their imagination, all they need to know and think is told them - don’t question, don’t dissent. Be obedient to the one source of ‘truth’. You can see how a ‘Disinformation Governance Board’ will fit right in with today’s generation.
Triage is a dirty word nowadays, as is the "Fatman and trolley"-question. Students simply can't handle the level of abstract thought needed to first choose an answer and then analyse both the answer in detail, following the logic to see where it leads, and take a third person look at their own emotional responses and reactions.
It's not that they balk at the horror of a 'Sophie's choice', it's that they simply can't. They lack the intelligence, moral fortitude and humble humility before inevitable situations necessary to make such decisions, even in theory or exercises.
Instead, they deflect, rationalise, become hysteric or angered, or take refuge in buzz word salad as magic formulae to ward off "evil".
People with such limited intellects can ever only be followers as they have been conditioned with a virtually physical slave reflex.
You touch on important topics: ethics, the need to make hard decisions and (alas) to recognize that not all problems can be solved; they can (at best) be managed. Some situations are a Hobson's Choice, damned if you do, damned if you don't. In other words, no clear alternative. But the real sin is that many difficult issues that DO have optimal (not to say ideal!) solutions are not addressed simply because of social, political or other opposition to solving them.
Oh yes, and that a lot of our cherished democratic, moral and religious ideals are bullshit; or to be more fair perhaps, a lot of them quickly break down in extreme circumstances. Many moralists assert that the same morals, ethics and standards should apply in all times in all places. As a counter-argument, I would ask them if they would really demand that in a foxhole in combat as compared to a Sunday afternoon picnic in the park? I'd say not.
To borrow the analogy from the famous essay "Lifeboat Ethics" (short and highly recommended), most of our institutions in the West seem to honestly believe that all comers are welcome and equally entitled to be rescued and given a place on the lifeboat. The very idea that seating is limited and that trying to please everybody will kill everybody, is anathema and the mere mention of it is harshly punished. At least as applied to medicine, we may be approaching a point where the individual will figuratively be better off floating alone in his life vest or even treading water.
There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Older generations had to struggle and strive for a better life, so had to make choices, some difficult and do things you didn’t like but had to. For example, your first job might be a real pig, low paid, but you did it because it was ‘a start’ while you gained experience and found something better. In those times there was no welfare and you were expected to work, not ponce off your parents… well, they wouldn’t let you nor could they afford to anyway. Nowadays, nobody must struggle or strive, or do a job they don’t like the State will provide or your nice middle class parents will.
I think you also describe critical analysis and this has to be taught - not as a subject per se but children early on have to learn to think about things, get more information, ask questions, make comparisons, comprehend and interpret what they see/hear. When I learnt English, essay writing was called ‘comprehension’, where we were given a poem, passage from a play, newspaper article or a picture and we had to write an essay about it. What the meaning was, the nuances or if pictorial what we thought was happening in the scene both from what we saw and could imagine. I recall we would be given the first line of a poem, then had to write a story based on that. As I understand it, that kind of teaching went out of fashion in the 1970s. Children no longer need to use their imagination, all they need to know and think is told them - don’t question, don’t dissent. Be obedient to the one source of ‘truth’. You can see how a ‘Disinformation Governance Board’ will fit right in with today’s generation.