Shiny Doom Forum

[rklee]

You are the only surgeon at a hospital. You have 5 patients who are about to die. They all need a critical organ (brain, heart...etc). All of them are A+ blood type and are all compatible. They will die tonight unless they get an organ however no organs are available.
You see a new patient walk in, he's there for a annual checkup and he has just recieved a perfect bill of health. You notice that he also is completely compatible with the 5 dying patients. You know you can save the 5 lives if you take the organs from this one healthy patient.
Again same assumptions as in the first part, all patients are bums. You cannot freeze or in anyway prrolong the life of the dying patients without the organs. You cannot save the healthy patient if u take his organs. All are the same age. There is no risk in the operation, the 5 patients WILL all survive and be perfectly healthy if you do the operation. Also the healthy patient WILL die.
What do you do and why?

What if the patient was in a coma? or was braindead? (this is not part of the poll).
_________________
"My Heart Is In the Work" - Andrew Carnegie

[Mogri]

I would actively harm the least amount of people as possible. This is obvious in the first one (kill the one, not the five), and in the second, I would not harm one to save the others who would otherwise die.

Technically, the many outweigh the one, so I could argue the second situation a little in either direction; however I think personally I would feel worse hurting someone, even if it reversed others' conditions.

If the one patient was in a coma, my decision would not change, but if they were braindead without hope of recovering, then I would probably save the five people.
_________________
"A club without the right direction, is a misguided stick."
-- Master Wham

[Trool]

I think for the first one I would stay on the track that I was put on for some unknown reason. This way I can shift the blame, but that's mostly to make me feel better. The second one for me is a lot easier I wouldn't harm the healthy patient. If though he was in a comma or brain dead it would totaly depend on his chances or recovery. If there was very very little chance to no chance then I would consider it and ask his relatives or whomever was visiting him. If no one was then I'd probably perform the transplant. But it's the not knowing how well he'll recover that make this one harder....
_________________
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, isn't 'Eureka!' but rather 'hmm....that's funny.'

--Isaac Asimov

[rklee]

That's the argument of my TA who proposed this dilemma (I modified it a bit).
You are less responsible because u didn't pull the switch. See the original dilemma stated that u fell asleep and you missed a turn and that's why you are on the unused tracks but I don't believe this corresponds to the hospital problem because u are to blame in the beginning of the train problem anyways. But still, the point is I think what you'er saying is inaction as a cause of aproblem is not as bad as action to cause a problem. I think this is not right however I can see how people will think so.

One strong utilitarian in my class said butcher the healthy patient . It surprised a lot of us. The ends justify the means. However this is not really true because after u do that... who the hell's gonna go to a hospital anymore? . So in the end it will be worse anyways.
_________________
"My Heart Is In the Work" - Andrew Carnegie

[Trool]

I do kinda agree with you on the idea that inaction is better then action in certain situations. But the problem with this situation is the lack of knowledge. I'm not sure what the ethical answer will be, but if i don't know any person on the tracks and they are all exactly equal then i wouldn't have as much of an issue with having my train kill either of them and I really have no basis to decide on which ones are more important and since it wasn't my fault that the train is on the wrong track then I can say it isn't my decision to make. But if it was my fault that the train was on the wrong track then I would have to switch and kill the one person and take responcibility for that decision. The doctor senerio I think is an easier problem since here it's really asking about end's justifying the means. I don't think they really do so I wouldn't hurt the other person unless he was almost dead himself and had no hope, and even then I would consider it I think. This is similar to the grandmother and famous paining issue...I don't remmember where I head this...I think the idea is your in a museum and a fire starts. You are right next to a very very famous paining that people count and a defining cultural piece. Something like the Mona Lisa but more so. And there is also an old lady and you know she doesn't have more then maybe a month to live. You can only grab which one do you grab??? Though I guess this one is a bit more on the value of life...
_________________
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, isn't 'Eureka!' but rather 'hmm....that's funny.'

--Isaac Asimov