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.