Poll: Kill one to save ten?

[WalrusMan]

Not in that scenario. The man probably became an organ donor because he wanted to help people after he died, not because he wanted to die faster. I shouldn't be able to say "Oh, I can kill this man and use his organs to save other people." and then it's tough luck for him. If he weren't an organ donor, then I would just fix him up and the other ten patients would die, right? Wanting other people to live through your parts doesn't mean you should be killed the moment it becomes convenient.

 

[cobra_ky]

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.

this should be the first question they ask when you enter med school, and anyone who says they would allow the one to die should be immediately tossed out on their ass.

it's not a moral question at all, it's simple common sense. once people realize that doctors are willing to let organ donors die, NO ONE will be an organ donor and no one will be able to get a transplant ever again. this is why doctors have ZERO AUTHORITY to judge the value of a life.

it disgusts me that so many of you are willing to murder the people who are thoughtful and generous enough to want to give the gift of life to others after their own death. you all should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

[cobra_ky]

I would definately save the one man.
A computer thinks with cold logic, and says "Kill the one to save the ten."
A human thinks with compassion and says "I will never kill another person."

how do you know what a computer would say?

 

[Cactuar213]

Murder one person to save another ten? I think not.

 

[niglett]

no opinion

in most situations there are protocols that must be upheld or the person responsible could go under severe psychological issues that could harm others down the line . particularly if you are a doctor. in this situation your opinion its not worth the time to figure it out.

first put the ten others on life support and have someone heavenly monitor them and call out
for a donor.

secondly get the patent that is in critical condition to the emergency room stat and attempt
to save his life

third

if patent survives the operation pray for a miracle

if it fails get the organs to the others asap

as an aspiring doctor i believe that you cant let your emotions or "morals" interfere the time spent making a moral decision can be fatal to many. there is the Hippocratic oath and the law. go with predefined protocols and it could save lives.

 

[niglett]

on another note
is this really a question of murder one save ten or
try to save all eleven to the best of your ability?
just saying its a person with a job not a super hero/cop/hostage situation.

i also doubt many of your answers would be the same if the situation was a hostage situation. where it seems you are forced to kill a criminal to save ten children.

technically there all human and even the criminal has a right to live.

 

[CrafterMan]

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.

Woohoo, another person that hates me!

-Joe

 

[CrafterMan]

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.

So killing one person to save ten lives is bad, but condenming people to a horrible death becasue you disagree with them is a-ok?

Someone's parents didn't beat them enough.

Baha Max, you never cease to amaze me in the "telling things like they are" department of life.

-Joe

 

[FluffX]

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

Includin the liver?

 

[irrelevantnugget]

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.

I would want to. But legal crap would require me to ask the donor's family first. If they won't allow me, then I won't. Simple as that. Even if I'd let 10 people die this way, I won't get tossed in jail for killing a patient, thus allowing me to save more lives in the long run.

 

[michael_ab]

wasnt this on house md??

i formed no opinion, it would depend on who everyone is, if you kill a good hardworking member of society to save a bunch of druggies, then i would save the donor

 

[More Fun To Compute]

It's this sort of thing and capital punishment that makes me sneer whenever someone talks up common sense as if that is a solution to anything. Most people have a terrible grasp on ethics and logic.

 

[Adam]

Taking out the possibility of you getting arrested, sued or otherwised punished for neglect. I would say 'Yes' 100%. Because what the question basicly is saying is"

Would you kill 1 save ten?

Would you save 1 kill ten?

Now im no expert, but this seems like a simple math problem to me, so I would go with the saving 10 option. Just based on the information you gave us mind.

 

[The_General]

First sentence of the hippocritical oath:
"First, do no harm." Pretty much sums it up.

 

[phi161]

Assuming you're a properly qualified Doctor, you should have taken the Hippocratic Oath http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath [Hippocratic Oath]. Therefore the answer should be 'No, I would not', and attempt to save all of the people in question.

However in practice nowadays, or as a purely theoretical question, the temptation is to go for the 'The collective need out weights the single' mentality is strong. But don't we all have a right to life? Its a very tricky moral dilemma.

I know I haven't answered the question as such, and have answered the polls question with more questions, so to remain on topic; No, I would not.

 

[SovietSecrets]

I would save the one, why? Because if you kill the one to save the ten then you just did so to look better in everyone elses eyes.

 

[phi161]

I would save the one, why? Because if you kill the one to save the ten then you just did so to look better in everyone elses eyes.

I don't think its a case of 'looking good' or not