Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

awaythrowbosk t1_j6o4riu wrote

Reply to comment by _Maxolotl in Mount Sinai investigating newborn’s death during NYC nurses' strike by CasinoMagic

From a philosophical standpoint point, I’m really wondering who bears responsibility.

Mount Sinai management may have been responsible for why nurses went on strike to begin with, but the nurses who would’ve been stationed to newborn care and arguably could’ve prevented the death ultimately had a choice - go to work or don’t to fight for a cause.

On the one hand, management may have caused the reason why nurses weren’t available to look after patients. On the other it was the nurse’s absence that lead to death.

−86

Spittinglama t1_j6o5p6x wrote

I cannot "philosophically" come to any conclusion that places blame on a person who refuses to work under unfair labor conditions while the people denying fair labor conditions have a vast amount of wealth they sit on.

47

awaythrowbosk t1_j6o96ns wrote

Good argument but in a more extreme example, will it still be the case? What if all American citizens cease to pay taxes because of unfair living conditions and quality of life. And I’m so doing all city-paid workers don’t get paid and they all stop doing their jobs (teachers stop showing up to school and kids are left without education, sanitation stops taking trash and we have increase rodents and pests prescience and health risks, cops stop doing whatever cops do and criminals take advantage of the situation to wreak havoc, list goes on and on.

Considering you are now a victim since your kids don’t get education, there’s trash outside your house for weeks, and you have to board up your windows from opportunistic criminals, Will you still blame the government for pushing people to go this far, or will you blame everyone who played a part?

i feel like it’s always easy to blame the big leader if we’re not the victims (ie not it wasn’t our kid who died because of this whole strike debacle)

−29

thetravelingpeach t1_j6o9zwn wrote

That’s a straw man argument if I’ve ever heard one. You’re placing all the blame externally and none internally, even in your own examples. It’s always the workers fault, and the consumer is innocent in your examples.

If my kids can’t go to school, then my RESPONSIBILITY is to teach them myself. If sanitation isn’t taking out the trash, my RESPONSIBILITY is to clean and figure out a solution so my kids aren’t living in filth.

Similarly, in this very real situation, nurses took responsibility for their own lives. They were put in unsafe working conditions, without sufficient compensation, so they walked out. It is the hospital administration’s responsibility to either get nurses back into the building or to send critical patients to a hospital where they can receive necessary care

20

awaythrowbosk t1_j6ob2fc wrote

Very fair points. Now if you remove spectator bias and assume the position of the father/mother of the baby who died, can you honestly say you hold zero remorse against the nurses who would’ve been stationed to care for you and your kid had there not been a strike/unfair working conditions?

−16

Spittinglama t1_j6odryp wrote

I can wholeheartedly say that I would not hold striking nurses accountable if my own child died because they were literally striking to create SAFER conditions for children. They were striking BECAUSE it was dangerous to put few staff in charge of many patients. I am on the side of nurses precisely because I know they care about their patients and the hospital does not.

19

awaythrowbosk t1_j6olpya wrote

If it came down to it, would you volunteer to have your child die a martyr and as a symbol for fair wages/better working conditions for nurses? If it was your child’s life on the line would you also be accepting of the unintended consequence all for the betterment of future kids/lives of those who will care for future patients?

−2

Spittinglama t1_j6p01f0 wrote

Nobody is volunteering their child for martyrdom. I am capable of understanding that certain things happen for the overall betterment of people. One group is fighting to make it better and one is fighting against it. Striking is a necessary action to fight for better conditions for workers and better outcomes for patients. I stand with the people who want it to be better.

You are a terminally philosophy-brained freak that proposes false choices and inaccurate dichotomies.

11

thetravelingpeach t1_j6oca08 wrote

You’re using emotion to justify who’s right.That’s not how the world or our legal system works. I have two fat cats who feel very strongly resentful about the fact that they’ve been restricted from treats on the vet’s advice- by your logic that makes me a monster.

Of course a family is going to be distressed that their baby died. Of course they’re going to lash out in anger emotionally. That doesn’t make it right.

I’m going to give you a personal example. I grew up in a very cold, very snowy place. Local teenagers liked to race each other on snowmobiles in the ditches alongside the road. 5 kids on 2 snowmobiles were racing each other when they decided to cross in front of a semi. Icy road+a very heavy truck meant that the driver could not stop in time. All 5 kids died. The families blamed the driver, despite the fact that literally nothing he could have done could have changed the circumstances. The blame and hate he received plus his own guilt resulted in him taking his own life a few years later. Those families were not right in what they did, but they couldn’t accept their own responsibility in their children’s death(namely letting 5 kids under 16 use snowmobiles unsupervised alongside a highway to race)

I also suspect that you don’t actually know what spectator bias is

8

awaythrowbosk t1_j6odfzp wrote

But we see this happen all the time with cyclist in NYC - cyclists turn a corner when they don’t have the light or right of way, get hit with a semi, they die and we blame the city for not giving safe and protected bike lanes when the cyclist could have saved their own life had they waited their turn

On the one hand the cyclist would’ve indeed been safe if he had his own barricaded lane. On the other hand we share the road with bikes trucks cars you name it.

1

Spittinglama t1_j6odekp wrote

Are you saying what would happen if a majority of Americans participated in a general strike? If they did then maybe the labor force would gain some power to improve our lives. You know, as long as the cops don't start beating the shit out of people who are striking, which is what they historically have done.

I do not give a fuck about your weird hypotheticals. I care about the real world.

14

mowotlarx t1_j6ojyq2 wrote

>From a philosophical standpoint point, I’m really wondering who bears responsibility.

The Hospital Administration who didn't properly staff the hospital.

41

_Maxolotl t1_j6o8t63 wrote

From a philosophical standpoint point, you just wrote some spectacularly dimwitted both-sides-ism.

40

awaythrowbosk t1_j6oaml7 wrote

I feel it to be a justifiable question though I understand it’s a controversial one. To attack the thought of saying the underdog side is responsible without even justifying without offense is dancing around the point. We can’t just accept truth for what it is without explaining why.

It seems that your thought process is “people who are tasked to sustain and maintain public health/safety are not to blame if they decide to stop working due to unfair working and compensation conditions.” If we cut cops’ salaries and a significant number of them quit resulting shortage in staff or they all go on strike, and opportunistic criminals take advantage do whatever they want, do we still blame whoever is in charge of allocating budget for the cops salary instead of the actual individuals who quit?

−12

kaliwrath t1_j6oqbfw wrote

Dude you are to blame for not studying hard, becoming a nurse and preventing this baby’s death. Philosophically

38

Aviri t1_j6otp96 wrote

Nobody is obligated to work any job, that is slavery. Philosophical debate over.

31

randompittuser t1_j6oggz3 wrote

So if you quit your job, give two weeks notice, and then something bad happens weeks after you quit, you think you should be held criminally liable?

18

awaythrowbosk t1_j6ol0si wrote

No because I quit and am no longer responsible for what happens the second I walk out the door on my last day. But assuming I didn’t come in one day because I practiced my right to strike or I just wasn’t feeling it cause I was hungover, and for whatever reason my company couldn’t find a replacement, I would have a sense of guilt and to a certain extent feel responsible for bad things that happened which I would’ve been able to prevent had I been there.

Ie If I’m a security guard in the Louvre and we all didn’t show up to work on Monday for whatever reason and a bunch of thieves decide to steal the Mona Lisa on that day, then I’d feel directly responsible for why that very famous art work is lost and will probably be sitting in the house if whatever shady billionaire buys it from the dark web

−3

lkroa t1_j6oqgtu wrote

management had 10 days notice for the strike. as well as months notice that the contract expired at the end of the year and if they didn’t come to an agreement with the union/nurses, a strike was a possibility.

so if you gave two weeks notice and your boss didn’t replace you; and then something bad happened after you left, are you still liable? no and neither are the nurses.

21

randompittuser t1_j6otire wrote

How about if you scheduled vacation & something happened while you were away?

5

gerrys t1_j6p7y4y wrote

Management is responsible for adequate staffing, not workers. Hope this helps.

9