Radical Treatment allows engineers to take extreme measures, including amputations, to cure the gravely ill, resulting in a higher survival rate but also the risk of citizens becoming amputees. Sustain Life keeps the gravely ill alive without risky treatments to avoid complications like amputations, but it can lead to medical facilities being occupied for longer periods, potentially causing delays in treatment. The medical posts are filled with the sick, and among them, the gravely ill require immediate attention. It's in this high-stakes environment that you must decide between Radical Treatment and Sustain Life.

If You Choose Radical Treatment

Radical Treatment means that engineers will do whatever it takes to cure the gravely ill, from surgeries to amputations. The upside is a higher chance of survival and the return of some citizens to the workforce. The downside is the risk of complications, such as amputations, which can result in citizens becoming less productive or entirely unable to work.

Radical Treatment	Immediate Effects	Long-term Effects
Survival Rate	Higher	N/A
Medical Turnover	Quick	N/A
Risk of Amputations	Yes	N/A
Workforce Impact	Reduced Efficiency	Recovery with Prosthetics
Resource Requirements	N/A	Need for Factory
Ethical Implications	Controversial	Continued Ethical Debate
Policy Path	N/A	Influence on Future Decisions

Immediate Effects:

1. Higher Survival Rate: One of the most immediate benefits of choosing Radical Treatment is the increased likelihood of survival for your gravely ill citizens. This choice allows engineers to take extreme measures, including surgeries, to save lives.
2. Quick Turnover in Medical Facilities: Because engineers are willing to take risks to cure patients, medical posts and infirmaries will have a quicker turnover rate, freeing up beds for other sick citizens.
3. Risk of Amputations: The downside to these extreme measures is the risk of complications, most notably amputations. While the patient may survive, they could lose a limb in the process.
4. Workforce Impact: The immediate consequence of amputations is a reduction in workforce efficiency. Amputees cannot work until they receive a prosthetic limb.

Long-term Effects:

1. Need for Prosthetics: The presence of amputees in your society will necessitate the construction of a Factory to produce prosthetic limbs, requiring additional resources and labor.
2. Workforce Recovery: Once prosthetics are available, amputees can return to the workforce, albeit with some limitations depending on the job.
3. Ethical Implications: The choice to go with Radical Treatment may have long-term ethical consequences, affecting the morale and hope of your citizens. Some may view the extreme measures as necessary sacrifices, while others may see them as inhumane.
4. Resource Allocation: The need to produce prosthetics and perhaps even specialized care facilities for amputees will divert resources from other essential services like food production or heating.
5. Policy Path: Choosing Radical Treatment may also influence your future policy choices, potentially leading you down a path of more authoritarian or utilitarian decisions to maximize the greater good at the expense of individual well-being.

If You Choose Sustain Life

Sustain Life is a more conservative approach. Engineers will keep the gravely ill alive but won't risk dangerous treatments that could lead to complications. While this approach is ethically sound and avoids the risk of amputations, it also means that medical posts will be occupied for longer periods, potentially causing a backlog of patients who need treatment.

Sustain Life	Immediate Effects	Long-term Effects
Medical Facilities	Occupied for longer periods	Healthcare backlog; need for advanced solutions
Ethical Impact	Positive on hope and morale	Lasting ethical legacy
Resource Allocation	More resources to healthcare	Investment in specialized care
Workforce	No immediate return of gravely ill to work	Potential labor shortages

Immediate Effects:

1. Occupied Medical Facilities: Choosing "Sustain Life" means that your medical posts and later infirmaries will be occupied for longer periods. Gravely ill patients will be kept alive but won't be subjected to risky treatments, thus taking up valuable bed space that could be used for treating other patients.
2. Ethical Satisfaction: Your citizens may view this as a more humane approach, which could have a positive impact on overall hope and morale in your society.
3. Resource Allocation: Because the gravely ill are kept in medical facilities for extended periods, you may need to allocate more resources to healthcare, such as building additional medical posts or infirmaries.

Long-term Effects:

1. Healthcare Backlog: Over time, the choice to "Sustain Life" can lead to a backlog in your healthcare system. As more citizens fall ill due to the harsh conditions, your occupied medical facilities may struggle to keep up, requiring you to invest in more advanced healthcare solutions.
2. Specialized Care Requirement: Eventually, you may need to enact additional laws like "Care Houses" or invest in technologies that can better manage the gravely ill, such as advanced infirmaries.
3. Workforce Impact: While "Sustain Life" avoids the risk of creating amputees, it also means that the gravely ill are not returning to the workforce anytime soon. This could lead to labor shortages, especially in critical sectors like resource gathering and food production.
4. Ethical Legacy: The choice to sustain life could have a lasting impact on the ethical fabric of your society, shaping how your citizens view leadership and humanity in times of crisis.

Radical Treatment Pros & Cons

Pros	Cons
Higher survival rate	Risk of amputations
Increased workforce potential	Ethical concerns
Swift turnover in medical posts	Requires prosthetics for amputees
	Potential negative impact on morale

Pros:

1. Higher Survival Rate: Radical Treatment increases the chances of gravely ill citizens surviving, as Engineers are allowed to take extreme measures to save lives.
2. Quick Turnover in Medical Facilities: Because the gravely ill are either cured or become amputees, medical posts and infirmaries free up more quickly, allowing for the treatment of more citizens.
3. Workforce Retention: Citizens who survive radical treatment can often return to work, albeit sometimes as amputees, thus helping to alleviate labor shortages.

Cons:

1. Risk of Amputations: The extreme measures taken can result in complications, most notably amputations, which render citizens less productive or entirely unable to work.
2. Ethical Concerns: The aggressive approach to treatment may not sit well with all citizens, potentially causing discontent in your society.
3. Resource Drain for Prosthetics: If amputations occur, you'll need to build a Factory to produce prosthetics, requiring additional resources and labor.

Sustain Life Pros & Cons

Pros	Cons
Ethical Consideration	Longer Medical Occupancy
No Amputations	Resource Demand
Stable Workforce	Reduced Population Growth

Pros:

1. Ethical Consideration: Choosing Sustain Life is often seen as the more humane option, as it avoids risky procedures that could lead to complications like amputations.
2. No Amputations: Since engineers won't perform risky treatments, there's no risk of citizens becoming amputees, which would require additional resources for prosthetics.
3. Public Morale: Opting for a more compassionate approach can boost the morale of your citizens, potentially leading to fewer instances of social unrest.
4. Resource Conservation: Without the need for prosthetics, you can allocate resources to other pressing needs.

Cons:

1. Occupied Medical Facilities: Choosing to Sustain Life means that your medical posts and infirmaries will be occupied for longer periods, potentially causing a backlog of patients who need treatment.
2. Reduced Workforce: Gravely ill citizens will take up medical beds for an extended period, reducing the available workforce for other tasks.
3. Resource Drain: Keeping the gravely ill alive without curing them may require additional resources over time, such as food and heating, which could strain your city's supplies.
4. Strategic Limitation: The choice may limit your strategic options down the line, as you'll need to plan for the long-term care of these citizens, possibly requiring specialized care houses or more advanced medical facilities.

Which Law to Choose

Players who believe in making tough decisions for the greater good tend to choose Radical Treatment to ensure a steady stream of able-bodied workers, ready to face the harsh challenges of the Frostpunk world. However, they must also be prepared to address the ethical concerns and potential negative consequences that come with this approach.

Sustain Life suits players who are willing to sacrifice short-term productivity for the long-term happiness of their people. Choosing Sustain Life reflects a belief in preserving lives without subjecting citizens to the risks of amputations and potential discontent that may arise from unethical medical practices.

More Frostpunk:

• Frostpunk: Child Labor or Child Shelter
• Frostpunk: Faith vs. Order
• Frostpunk: How to Get More Steel
• Frostpunk Tips To Get You Started