In medical emergencies, such as a large scale disaster, where need is more than the supply of resources, “triage” is a way of determining priorities. At the most primitive level it is:
- Those who are likely to live, regardless of what care they receive;
- Those who are likely to die, regardless of what care they receive;
- Those for whom immediate care might make a positive difference in outcome
Looking at the above, those who are likely to die should not be given treatment. This seems inhuman, unless you take into account that focusing on “first come first served” basis or any such method will create more deaths because patients who could be saved did not get timely treatment.
The concept of triage indicates that prioritisation should not be based just on “important” versus “urgent” as emotionally perceived by the decision maker but based on the common good or good of the majority. This means that sometimes we have to do things that are not palatable, but are for the benefit of the majority of the stakeholders.
Time is a resource most of us do not have in plenty. Given the conflicts between work and home, between various projects at work, and at home, how do we choose?
Maybe, by focusing on what gives the maximum benefits to most people.
As an MBA, who are our stakeholders? What should we be doing, given the paucity of time, to maximize the benefits? Which patients do we leave to die, even though it is not emotionally acceptable?
Does this define professionalism?