2-3-4 Challenge Book Discussions #1 discussion
This topic is about
Exposed
Exposed
>
Question K
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jonetta
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Jun 15, 2016 05:00PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
I'm a bit fuzzy here (memory black holes). I think any person in Ben's position must make decisions based on both personal & public ethical and healthcare protocols. What did others think, who are more clear than I am?
I don't understand Janklow's reasoning. Why hide away four people who have ebola? Why not give them the shots to see if it works? He didn't absolutely order not to give them anything, but suggested that they not get it. Is he saving the shots for the other people around the country who have contracted it? Is he afraid of running out of the remedy?
He was hedging his bets. The only way this particular strain was eliminated was by confinement and the ultimate death of those infected. Janklow was hoping to keep them all under wraps and if they all died, so be it and he'd avoid a national threat, news story and outbreak. But, he was too much of a weasel to give the direct order and dumped the responsibility on Ben. If Ben decided not to treat them and they died, not his decision but the doctor's. If they lived and later infected someone because the virus was still in a host, not his fault because he told Ben to not treat them.
While I could understand his point of view, his approach was shameful. And, he didn't even know the scale of the issue when he made this decision. Yeah, he's going to be a great leader.
While I could understand his point of view, his approach was shameful. And, he didn't even know the scale of the issue when he made this decision. Yeah, he's going to be a great leader.

