After last night's deeds, there has been some debate among my friends. In Vheshrame, the Healers' Guild has one policy; in Yistreia, it has another.
Ghirbis' Position: The responsibility of the healer to her patient is supreme. She must take all plausible measures she can to save his life and cure his condition. (Illegal and immoral measures aren't plausible, etc., etc. Don't be silly.) A healer with several patients having crises should get help for all but one of them. A healer with one patient in a crisis and another not currently in a crisis should attend to the one in the crisis, and not reserve anything for the one not currently in one -- bearing in mind that few crises last longer than a day, and most resources are renewed at each dawntime.
Havune's Position: The responsibility of the healer to the community of patients is supreme. The healers should take all plausible measures she can to protect her patients collectively. A healer with several patients having crises should get help for all but one of them if she can; if she cannot, she should act to do the most good that she can with whatever resources she has. A healer with one patient in a crisis and another not currently in a crisis should help the one in a crisis, but save some cley for the other.
On a scale with -3 being Ghirbis's position (the individual patient is most importent) and 3 being Havune's (the collective good of the patients being most important), where does rightness reside? I provide -4 and 4 for more radical points of view than Ghirbis or Havune.