7 ms·

No, it's as I said. There was a famous case in 2017 where a surgeon was violently removed from an overbooked United Express airliner. He had refused to leave v

No, it's as I said. There was a famous case in 2017 where a surgeon was violently removed from an overbooked United Express airliner. He had refused to leave voluntarily, as doing so would have meant not seeing his patients the next day. [0] I'm not sure this strictly counts as travelling for work, but the points remains. Plenty of people fly abroad for medical care. [1] Over 2,000 flights were cancelled in this incident. Over 300,000 would-be passengers were affected. [2] It's implausible that nobody's medical care was affected. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Express_passenger_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Express_passenger_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism [2] https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/uk-airport-disruption-flights-cancelled/ https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/uk-airport-disruption-f...

tcfhgj 6d ago
I did not claim nobody's medical care was affected. It could have happened if it was uncommon and it could have happened if it is common. My claims: 1) most flight's are not necessary 2) it's not common to fly for medical care (yes, very rich people may have a different perception, but that's all it is)
- MaxBarraclough 5d ago
  > I did not claim nobody's medical care was affected. You said the flight doesn't contribute to preventing harm to anyone. Interfering with medical care is a clear form of harm, that's why I focused on it. > it's not common to fly for medical care (yes, very rich people may have a different perception, but that's all it is) That's incorrect on both counts: it's common, and it's not just rich patients. Please take a look at the Medical tourism Wikipedia article I linked above. Cost-reduction is a major motivation of medical tourism. From [0] : > in 2016 nearly 144,000 UK citizens travelled abroad for medical treatment. The survey suggests a steady increase since 2000, even though the 2016 sample of 250,000 travellers represent 0.23% of the total number of travellers entering or leaving the UK. See also [1]. [0] https://doi.org/10.58248/PB38 https://doi.org/10.58248/PB38 Outward medical tourism (2020) [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3812100/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3812100/ Medical Tourism: A Cost or Benefit to the NHS? (2013)

tcfhgj 6d ago

I did not claim nobody's medical care was affected. It could have happened if it was uncommon and it could have happened if it is common. My claims: 1) most flight's are not necessary 2) it's not common to fly for medical care (yes, very rich people may have a different perception, but that's all it is)

MaxBarraclough 5d ago
> I did not claim nobody's medical care was affected. You said the flight doesn't contribute to preventing harm to anyone. Interfering with medical care is a clear form of harm, that's why I focused on it. > it's not common to fly for medical care (yes, very rich people may have a different perception, but that's all it is) That's incorrect on both counts: it's common, and it's not just rich patients. Please take a look at the Medical tourism Wikipedia article I linked above. Cost-reduction is a major motivation of medical tourism. From [0] : > in 2016 nearly 144,000 UK citizens travelled abroad for medical treatment. The survey suggests a steady increase since 2000, even though the 2016 sample of 250,000 travellers represent 0.23% of the total number of travellers entering or leaving the UK. See also [1]. [0] https://doi.org/10.58248/PB38 https://doi.org/10.58248/PB38 Outward medical tourism (2020) [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3812100/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3812100/ Medical Tourism: A Cost or Benefit to the NHS? (2013)