Picking this apart a little, there are a few base assumptions that are interesting to me: your (docs' versus individuals'? Not clear exactly who.) judgement on who 'deserves' saving seems related to time elapsed from time of the treatment in question to death. It's even more interesting to me that you used the example of a junkie rather than something more concrete like an alcoholic (certainly a type of junkie, but I think that word can be used much more broadly than substance abuse). I'm reading this to mean that based on a person's lifestyle which one simply disagrees with, one can withhold treatment from one patient in favor of another patient who the treater feels is more worthwhile. I find this consistent with my experience working with docs (and everyone else, for that matter).
The reason I find this interesting is because this is
also the opposing argument people are making; it's only the authority which is not equal. To be more clear, one side of this disagreement argues that everyone should be treated equally with exceptions physicians (again, not exceptionally clear who should be deciding, but I think people on that side mean physicians) decide upon, and the other side argues that individual physicians should be able to decide who to treat. They're the same argument, just with different deciders.
It seems like one side trusts themselves (and each individual physician) to make the right choice, and the other side either doesn't trust themselves or doesn't trust its colleagues to make the right choice.
To the former group (pro-individual-decision-makers), I'd ask if you have so much faith in your colleagues, then why do you care if such rules are mandated? To the latter group (pro-mandatory-standard), I'd ask you one of 2 questions, depending on who you lack trust in. If you don't trust your colleagues, how can you want them to make this rule for you? Unless, of course, that person just wants to be the one making the rules. In which case, I'd refer them to
this page. If you don't trust yourself... well then I guess this makes sense, actually! You're afraid that you'd do something horrible if left to make this decision on your own.
Strangely, the only people in this discussion who argue for a system supported by their understanding are those who don't trust themselves to make good decisions. Begging the question would be to ask if these people should be doctors in the first place, but that also implies that only people who arrive at illogical conclusions 'should be' physicians!