The story began with a statement. It said A --> B is true and asked for our response. We had a few choices, namely Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree and Strongly disagree.
While the statement is not valid (instead of contradictory, as suggested by some of our sophists), I did have no choice but disagree with it. But whether I should strongly disagree with it, which I believe will spend most of my life to do it, or just disagree with it by clicking the corresponding button, I choose the later one for the sake of efficiency.
But then the teacher did not like it, especially when 83% of the class disagree with him. "Have you chosen the wrong profession?" This is his point of view.
I am not sure. But in case of 83% of our classmates did not agree with him, there are but many solutions. He can arrange a patient-safety tutorial for us, which surely yields disappointingly with our changed learning style. And of course, it is not cost-effective.
Concerning about cost-effectiveness, patient safety in itself is about cost-effectiveness. We spent a lot of time to take care of patient, optimizing, or even maximizing the resources to provide the best care for most of our patients, based on the Utilitarianism. But with the ethics of Kant, we are not doing quite right, as we treat everyone base on this principles.
Oh, we are talking too far from patient safety. But it is perhaps more important than discussing how invalid this statement it is, which I believe is high school students level.
No comments:
Post a Comment