The health care problems are some that you do actual encounter on a regular basis. In order to prevent individual moral standpoints interfering with the system, there are established procedures based on medical groundwork. For transplantation the organ must match as well as possible with the recipient (otherwise you run a far greater risk of rejection), so a lot of matching and testing has to be done before. With the established procedures in place, even if everything matched for the new patient, it’d be very hard (at least in my country) to circumvent all the legalities to re-assign the organ, disregarding that in an emergency situation all the matching/testing would possibly take too much time anyways. For treatment trials, either you have no standard/validated treatment (for a novel disease) yet or you have one that is sufficiently validated (but maybe not as effective as you’d like). In the first case you can just do a placebo/treatment trial (as there is no data to show that the treatment actually works better over just supportive care, but as soon as you see a significant statistical benefit in you intermediate analyses, you would consider stopping the trial to put everybody on the treatment and vice versa if the treatment is actually harmful). In the second case you’d do e.g. a non-inferiority trial where you compare the new treatment against the standard (not a placebo) to show ‘non-inferiority’ as in no lesser benefit for the study population.
Conclusion, the true villain in this game is whoever made you do these sadistic decisions.
Guilty as charged
The health care problems are some that you do actual encounter on a regular basis. In order to prevent individual moral standpoints interfering with the system, there are established procedures based on medical groundwork.
For transplantation the organ must match as well as possible with the recipient (otherwise you run a far greater risk of rejection), so a lot of matching and testing has to be done before. With the established procedures in place, even if everything matched for the new patient, it’d be very hard (at least in my country) to circumvent all the legalities to re-assign the organ, disregarding that in an emergency situation all the matching/testing would possibly take too much time anyways.
For treatment trials, either you have no standard/validated treatment (for a novel disease) yet or you have one that is sufficiently validated (but maybe not as effective as you’d like). In the first case you can just do a placebo/treatment trial (as there is no data to show that the treatment actually works better over just supportive care, but as soon as you see a significant statistical benefit in you intermediate analyses, you would consider stopping the trial to put everybody on the treatment and vice versa if the treatment is actually harmful). In the second case you’d do e.g. a non-inferiority trial where you compare the new treatment against the standard (not a placebo) to show ‘non-inferiority’ as in no lesser benefit for the study population.
This was fun to vote on and ruin jacks life and giving jack the idea to make it twitch chat decides was the best disinclined of my life
Once again, Jack commits crimes... I'm noticing a pattern here.
where among us community roles 3
when is among us roles part 3?