Poll: Kill one to save ten?

[BIGB0SS]

yes,no doubt

 

[Sigel]

No, based on your scenario, I could not just let him die if I could save him. I personally don't feel that is right.

 

[obex]

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.

No i would not because once you start doing that your no longer a doctor your playing god even if i killed the guy and gave the others organs there are hundreds of people waiting for transplants at any given moment why should i rob a guy of his life if the effect was try and soak up the sea with a sponge.

All these people who say yes no doubt would be terrible doctors as you would instantly butcher any organ donor you treat as you will always have people needing organs.

And all those people who ask what kind of person this guy is who are you to decide who made you judge jury and executioner?

 

[wrecker77]

I wouldnt LET him die. i would try to make it seem like i was saving him. to comfort the persons passing.

 

[grimsprice]

mathmatically optimized compassion.

 

[Glerken]

No.
And I wouldn't have killed the other ten, there simply wasn't anything I could do to save them.
If I could for sure, 100% save the first person, I would.

 

[Bigeyez]

As a doctor "yes" shouldn't even be an option. It goes against the Hippocratic oath. Not only that but theres no guarantee the organs from the one man would successfully work with the other ten. Theres a chance I'd end up with 11 dead people and killed a man for no reason.

 

[ZeeClone]

Your primary decision is: to kill one or to save one while considering your inaction will kill all eleven.

If you take another example: You're on a runaway train, there are 10 people strapped to the lines ahead of you but if you call and take a switch track there's only one person strapped.

Which do you choose?

In this example your primary decision is: to kill one or to kill ten while considering your inaction will kill ten

From the first example, I call the third line of the Hyppocratic Oath which compels the first option:

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

 

[Lukeje]

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.

No i would not because once you start doing that your no longer a doctor your playing god even if i killed the guy and gave the others organs there are hundreds of people waiting for transplants at any given moment why should i rob a guy of his life if the effect was try and soak up the sea with a sponge.

That leads to an intriguing expansion of his idea... why not just kill "worthless" (healthy) people for their organs? It's pretty much the same thing, and through doing this we could make sure that there was never an organ shortage.

 

[Summerstorm]

No ... you said i am a doctor. Hippocratic Oath; Do no harm. If i were me and had no ties to that man... yeah i would. But when i have given an oath, i can't break it. You can't just willfully kill somebody or denying care for someone in need.

 

[Sightless Wisdom]

Well considering I would likely lose my job for not heling the man who need treatment, and possibly face charges of murder....no I wouldn't. If nobody cared which I did. I would let him die to save the others. I mean I don't care about any of them...but why save one when you could save ten instead?

 

[obex]

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.

No i would not because once you start doing that your no longer a doctor your playing god even if i killed the guy and gave the others organs there are hundreds of people waiting for transplants at any given moment why should i rob a guy of his life if the effect was try and soak up the sea with a sponge.

That leads to an intriguing expansion of his idea... why not just kill "worthless" (healthy) people for their organs? It's pretty much the same thing, and through doing this we could make sure that there was never an organ shortage.

If you do that then your not a doctor

 

[Berethond]

Let's go back to me being a doctor -- totally unlikely.
knowing me, I'd be much more likely to run around naked stabbing people while singing Tiny Dancer.
"Hold me closer, tiny dancer!" *stab*

So...I guess... killing all eleven, plus three hundred or so.

I demand the "Run around naked stabbing people while singing Tiny Dancer." poll option.

 

[LopezMeister]

In the country I live in (the UK) I would definitely lose my job as well as my license to operate as a Doctor if I let a man die who was save-able, I would also probably face legal action and go to prison for manslaughter/murder. Then again, in unlikely conditions such as these, an agreement from the man would possibly be possible although this would require current laws in this country to be changed/ignored. (Euthanasia is illegal in the UK and aiding someone in killing themselves makes you liable for murder or manslaughters).

 

[DarkRyter]

Yes, I probably would. As a doctor, I should always make the decision for the good of my patients. If I had to choose between one or ten, the ten would win out.

If I could, however, I would much prefered to have asked the donor about it.

 

[Lukeje]

If you do that then your not a doctor

Exactly; if you were to kill a man who wouldn't otherwise die, then that is no different than what I suggested. (Please note, I am not seriously suggesting this, just merely pointing out where this train of thought may lead).

 

[Lyri]

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.

No, there is no justification for killing him, it's medically unethical.
That's if I was playing by the book.

If I didn't have to care for rules & regulations, even then it would be a maybe.

 

[SsilverR]

NO!!!! ... i would need more information!

... sometimes 1 life is worth more than 10

.... but if i was a surgeon .... and didn't know anything about the patient in trouble i would delay treatment so i could treat the other 10 because of the odds .. at least 1 in that 10 would be more useful to humanity than the 1

 

[YuheJi]

No. I would prefer to keep my job.