Poll: Kill one to save ten?

[mdk31]

Imagine you are a doctor. Under your responsibility are ten people who each need a different organ transplant to survive. One day, a man who is an organ donor arrives in intensive care after a vehicle accident. He is in critical condition, but he can be saved with immediate care. However, if he dies, the organs he would therefore donate would be enough to save the other ten. If you were the doctor in this case, would you allow the one man to die in order to save the other ten, or would you save the one man, but cause the other ten to die?

Imagine for the sake of this scenario that there is no hope of getting another source of a transplant for the other ten people.

 

[bue519]

Well, I probably wouldn't let someone die. Mainly because I don't feel its fair to play god with someone else's life.

 

[TheLastCylon]

Yeah, definitely.

 

[Cliff_m85]

No, I would save the man. My job is to save lives, not kill people off to prevent deaths. It's not my fault the ten people die, but it would be if that one individual dies.

 

[hailene]

Depends on who I'm killing.

Some random criminal who has thrown away his or her life? Sure, why not?

 

[walls of cetepedes]

I wouldn't do it. I couldn't face the possible lawsuits and inquests.

 

[Flunk]

It violates the Hippocratic oath so no. I'm disgusted with anyone who said yes, I think you all should be cut up for organ transplants as ironic punishment.

 

[Xojins]

Save the man... who are you to decide he should die?

 

[Biosophilogical]

If I was a doctor I wouldn't save the ten, as I would treat each patient I have as an individual. As long as the guy lives he is not (in my books) a donor. As he isn't a donor I would try and save him. I know it sounds illogical but if my job was to help people live/get better, I wouldn't deliberately kill someone, even for the sake of ten. I wouldn't be able to live with myself.

 

[Canton]

I think I'll settle for being a bastard and pass the dilemma to that organ donor. Let him decide what to do, it's his life after all right?. . . right?. . .

 

[Lukeje]

The problem is that even after the transplants the people will have a severely reduced lifespan (with all the immunosuppressive drugs they would be on), with no guarantee that any of the transplants will actually take. Thus it would be medically more sound to make sure the one man lives.

 

[Souplex]

I would quickly throw the one into the search bar.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.128460?page=1

 

[RavingPenguin]

Save him. Im not god, I dont decide who lives and dies, and if I'm a doctor it means I took an oath to help all those in need.

 

[BlackHawkfox]

Depends on who the "0ne" is, I would kill 10 to save my son for example.

 

[EeveeElectro]

I'd try my best. If he died, then I'd use his organs. Yay!

 

[thatstheguy]

I would kill him than eat the organs infront of the people that need it.

How do those organs taste?

 

[Agent Larkin]

Ends justify the means and the whole is greater then the sum of the parts.