Poll: Kill one to save ten?

Recommended Videos

Golden Gryphon

New member
Jun 10, 2009
449
0
0
In general I can't say I'd feel much remorse for letting one person die to save ten.

However I can't really say what I'd do in that situation because:
a) As someone already pointed out, it doesn't work like that
b) I think keeping my job would be more important to me than anyone else's life
c) I'm not a doctor because I don't really like people that much
 

th3xile

New member
Aug 9, 2009
76
0
0
If he was aware of the conditions and agreed to give his life to save the 10, then yes. But otherwise, it would be totally illegal and against the Hippocratic Oath. I would not make the decision by my own opinions of the patients either, unless I was personally close to them (close relative or best friend) and even then with much consideration. For all I know that single man could be the one to cure AIDS or cancer, and maybe one of the 10 would end up committing a massive terrorism act. You can't know these things, it's best not to play god.

EDIT: I didn't read the question fully. He is in intensive care, so I would most likely have to ask his family.
 

Corpse XxX

New member
Jan 19, 2009
1,635
0
0
I would not let the one man die, and as a doctor you would be resposible for it if he dies, and would therefor loose your job and get some prison time..
 

Haydyn

New member
Mar 27, 2009
976
0
0
My plan for world domination involves shrinking the population down. Can I let all of them die?
 

Mr Companion

New member
Jul 27, 2009
1,534
0
0
It would be unfair on the person if I, as a medical professional, intentionally avoided saving him. So as much as I would want to save the other ten, I wouldn't want to loose my job or conscience on that one man's death.
 
Apr 16, 2009
85
0
0
"I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help."

No. I as a doctor would never do such a thing, and in doing so, anyone who does would violate the hippocratic oath and lose the right to call themselves doctors; To do such a thing would be murderous.

EDIT: Frankly, the whole situation is not a valid choice. As a doctor, your job is to save as many as you can, not playing damage control. You have no option to sacrifice the one for the many, because it is not your job to do so.
Additionally, I have a word of advice for everyone who says yes to this poll:
Don't become a doctor. If you are a doctor, you are in the wrong line of work.
 

Disaster Button

Elite Member
Feb 18, 2009
5,237
0
41
I don't know if I would, because then these people would be benefiting from the death of someone else, and I don't know if I could live with that, or whether they could.

However if it came down to sacrificing myself if iI was in the critical care position to save the people I would be more willing as it would be my choice
 

similar.squirrel

New member
Mar 28, 2009
6,021
0
0
That's a conundrum..I don't really put much stock in human life, but it's clearly the logical thing to do from a 'moral' standpoint, and it would leave me much more at ease.
Now, if I knew the person and loved them, it'd be different.
And I'd probably choose to save ten kittens in lieu of ten humans if it came to that..
 

Dusty Donuts

New member
Jul 16, 2009
928
0
0
Help this guy first. The 10 people with organ transplants, well, their families are already prepared, and they have a waiting list. It's not like for every liver problem someone gets from sucking back the bottle too much is going to have someone healthy die for them.
But, if it was an essential transplant due to bad luck...well, we still save the person. Unless he specifically asks that he wants to save 10 people.
And besides, this scalpel accidentally fell onto his heart and removed it perfectly, didn't it? Right? Yeah, i'm insensitive, but we gotta cross this kind of bridge only if we ever come to it.
 

Hamster at Dawn

It's Hazard Time!
Mar 19, 2008
1,650
0
0
Yes, provided the transplants would definitely be successful and I wouldn't risk losing my job or going to jail.
 

Erlec

New member
Apr 14, 2009
36
0
0
i think the problem with this situation is that it doesn't find out the nature of the human due to the fact you are a doctor. Due to the oath, many would go behind it.

The best example of this moral problem would be one I learned in highschool:
"You are a imprisoned by a group of men with 20 people who you know. These men intend to kill you and all of your friend. A leader among them comes to you and says: "Since I'm so generous I'll give you a choice. If you kill half of these people, I'll let you all go free, if not I'll kill them all."

What would you choose?
 

Custard_Angel

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,236
0
0
As long as I'm not sacrificing my girlfriend or what-have-you, I'd do it no worries.

Hell... For my girlfriend I'd probably sacrifice 10 to save her...
 
Jun 8, 2009
960
0
0
Nope. I'd treat him and wait for him to die of old age. His organs can save people then, I'm not going to butcher someone for their organs. It can wait. Even giving him the choice would be like saying to someone: ten people will die because you had the temerity to survive. Have a nice life!

Aside from the hippocratic oath, its just wrong. Not just morally, but also logically. We'll get the organs later, we don't need this guy dead yet. Yes, whoever needed the organs will die, but if we use these organs now, ten people in the future will also bite it. You can't win.
 

sramota

New member
Aug 1, 2009
134
0
0
No matter what neither of us are to judge the worth of someone's life.
Christians especially shouldn't do it...