Ok. I think I need to tap out. I don't think we can have the same conversation. And that isn't a judgement or anything about you, or your points, or anything. I think that fundamentally we're just trying to have two similar but distinct conversations.

There are two conversations: one about exploring and establishing a model of moral evaluation of action, and one about how a hospital should be run, dignity, how to organize a society for the betterment of its members, etc etc. They're both great conversations. I'll happily concede that yours is more important.

I keep trying to talk about morality and ethics. To me, it's the much more interesting conversation. It's extremely rare to actually get the opportunity to get into moral philosophy, so even fucking roadkill is great.

It's not that I necessarily disagree with what you're saying. It's just that you're not at all talking about morals and ethics, and each attempt i make to pull you back in is met in failure. Now you're talking about "fault" which is a completely distinct philosophical concept and "failure of the hospital system" which is not really anything.

Yeah hospitals should treat everyone. I have universal Healthcare. How to run a hospital or a health system is a tedious conversation for me. The moral and ethical discussion and examination of right and wrong of actions when a moral agent is part of a social collective with health support and limited resources is interesting.

If we just talked about your thing... we'd basically just be two people roughly agreeing with each other. Which is fine, it's just that isn't really a valuable conversation for either of us. We're already like 99% aligned, there is nothing material to explore or debate. I can't offer you anything in that conversation that you don't already have and vice versa.