Poll: Kill one to save ten?
- Thread starter mdk31
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I actually work in organ and tissue donation ( hence the name, semitendinosus, a tendon that we use for ACL, PCL, and rotator cuff repair). I am actually the person who recovers tendons, hearts, skin, and bone.
Naturally, I asked the organ people ( those who work to get the critical organs, surgeons and hospitals and our own staff) about any situations like this thread. They told me not only has it not happened, but it is impossible to happen. And here's why:
1. Organs are delivered by location and transplant compatibility, which is organized by a list operated by an organization called UNOS. The UNOS list decides who is first in line for tranplant of an organ based on the condition of the patient and the location of both patient and donor.
2. Doctors have little control or say over who gets an organ. The doctor who works on the donor who dies, does not have ANY say in who gets the organs, where the organs go, or even if they are used. The only doctor who has any real power is the doctor of the recipient, it is his decision whether an organ offered to him by UNOS will be used for his patient.
3. For this reason, I can only claim this about the organization I work for, but in our organization, ( which is non-profit) even if you have signed the donor card, and expressed your wishes to be a donor, we would still ask your family for consent before recovering any organs or tissues. So ultimately it is your next of kin who decide whether you are a donor or not.
I pointed this out because there are people who are afraid of this very thing happening to them. That a doctor will not save them for the sake of organs. It is simply not true. Organs and tissue are used to save and improve countless lives, but not at the cost of losing a life. All donors are 100% dead, and THEN decisions about donation are made. I hope this cleared up the issue for you. And if you couldn't tell, I voted No.
Naturally, I asked the organ people ( those who work to get the critical organs, surgeons and hospitals and our own staff) about any situations like this thread. They told me not only has it not happened, but it is impossible to happen. And here's why:
1. Organs are delivered by location and transplant compatibility, which is organized by a list operated by an organization called UNOS. The UNOS list decides who is first in line for tranplant of an organ based on the condition of the patient and the location of both patient and donor.
2. Doctors have little control or say over who gets an organ. The doctor who works on the donor who dies, does not have ANY say in who gets the organs, where the organs go, or even if they are used. The only doctor who has any real power is the doctor of the recipient, it is his decision whether an organ offered to him by UNOS will be used for his patient.
3. For this reason, I can only claim this about the organization I work for, but in our organization, ( which is non-profit) even if you have signed the donor card, and expressed your wishes to be a donor, we would still ask your family for consent before recovering any organs or tissues. So ultimately it is your next of kin who decide whether you are a donor or not.
I pointed this out because there are people who are afraid of this very thing happening to them. That a doctor will not save them for the sake of organs. It is simply not true. Organs and tissue are used to save and improve countless lives, but not at the cost of losing a life. All donors are 100% dead, and THEN decisions about donation are made. I hope this cleared up the issue for you. And if you couldn't tell, I voted No.
No I wouldn't, the greater good concept is bullshit. If he can be saved, it is my job as a doctor to save him first and foremost, not to kill him for organs to save others. Just think about it: How would you like it if you were the man in intensive care?
No. Looking at the patients point of view... what if a doctor said "well, we could save you, but instead we are taking your organs to save other people"... And yes, I know a doctor wouldn't come and tell you that... or at least I hope not... And, if I was laying there dying, I wouldn't want them to let someone else die just to save me...
I'd save the one man. I'm a doctor, not god so why have a god complex and play god? Besides there are other people that could be ahead of the ten people for an organs transplant. Also organs get rejected all the time and can't be used in transplants so basically I would have killed the guy for no reason; and the guy has a family just like the ten. Why tear him away from them to save ten people the most likely don't know? If I was that man's family I'd sue the doctors ass off and make sure the doctor losses their medical license. So there for one less doctor in the world and less lives the can be saved and more then ten people could die because of that. Also, it's highly unlikely there all eleven people have the same blood type or even compatible types so I couldn't do the transplant anyway.
No, it's his damn organs. I would help him snuff himself out if that's what he wanted to do to help the others. But quite frankly it's not a doctor's job to play god, it's his/her job to play healer.
If I was a doctor then I would do my best to save all of them or risk my license to work. Now if this was changed to the trolly problem (one track splits into two tracks, you're at the turn station. One track with one person tied to it, the other with ten tied to it. The trolly is coming down the track with ten tied to it, you cannot untie anyone but you can change the track the trolly is headed down to the track with only one person on it.) I would do nothing -for two reasons: 1 - I don't have the right to make the decision 2 - Malthis would say I should let the most die to create a better world for those who are alive. Overpopulation and all that.
The oath doesn't have any effect on whether or not it would be right to do it, and it's not as though it's impossible to cover these things up quite effectively.
Then again, the situation is hypothetical and deals with the morality of the 10 vs. 1 situation. Feasibility and consequences aren't part of the model.
---
Anyway:
It depends entirely on who the people were and why they're there. If the one is Stephen Hawking and the ten are next to braindead anyway, I'd save him. If the one was next to braindead and Hawking were in the other ten, the one goes down. If the one is there for something beyond his control and the ten are all suffering as a consequence of their own actions, I'd probably save the one, but capacity to contribute to society would still trump "You drank yourself into this situation, so suck it."
Then again, the situation is hypothetical and deals with the morality of the 10 vs. 1 situation. Feasibility and consequences aren't part of the model.
---
Anyway:
It depends entirely on who the people were and why they're there. If the one is Stephen Hawking and the ten are next to braindead anyway, I'd save him. If the one was next to braindead and Hawking were in the other ten, the one goes down. If the one is there for something beyond his control and the ten are all suffering as a consequence of their own actions, I'd probably save the one, but capacity to contribute to society would still trump "You drank yourself into this situation, so suck it."
Someone never bothered to actually read Malthus, clearly.jboking said:
a) Come on, spell his name right, for Pete's sakes.
b) Malthus wouldn't care either way. His principle was that if the population goes up, resources become scarce and people starting dying, and that if the population goes down, resources are more available and reproduction increases. You wind up at equilibrium within a few cycles either way.
In response to 1, yes, it is your decision. The decision to do nothing is still a decision, and making it only changes your degree of liability in the most superficial of fashions.
lol sorry if I stole your point there but Spock is right in many ways lol, even though he doesn't exist.PsyberGoth said:
I would do it, but it would probably bother me later. Then again it would bother me if I did not let him die. Thats why i really don't want to be a doctor...
Actually, a full tissue and organ donor can help around eighty people. Although this number is largely made up of people who would not have their lives "saved" but rather improved, i.e. the ability to walk, stand, run, lift, without pain, as well as the aesthetic purposes of skin for burn patients.Lukeje said:
FYI your list should read, Lungs x2, Kidney's x2, Pancreas, Heart, Stomach, Liver, and GI tract. Skin, although an organ, is not a "critical" transplant situation. Most cadaver skin can be recovered hours after death has occured, and is rarely used immediately. It is usually kept frozen, tested numerous times, and cut to size, before it is tranplanted, although there are occasionally emergency situations circumventing this process.
How about this scenario? This one will likely be a little more difficult to come to a decision.
You are a superhero. You are up against a villain who has, for the moment, disabled your powers. He has an explosive device capable of destroying an entire city apartment district. He decides that he will not destroy the district, on one condition... You must kill a child, an innocent child.
If you choose not to do it, he will detonate the device, killing thousands of people. He has you on a live feed airing on every television within the city and outlying towns. Either way, you live as a murderer, the blood on your hands. Would you kill the child, in order to save thousands of hard-working, contributing members of society? Or would you save face, and spare the child?
You are a superhero. You are up against a villain who has, for the moment, disabled your powers. He has an explosive device capable of destroying an entire city apartment district. He decides that he will not destroy the district, on one condition... You must kill a child, an innocent child.
If you choose not to do it, he will detonate the device, killing thousands of people. He has you on a live feed airing on every television within the city and outlying towns. Either way, you live as a murderer, the blood on your hands. Would you kill the child, in order to save thousands of hard-working, contributing members of society? Or would you save face, and spare the child?
A doctor has no right to make a decision like this. They do not get to decide the value of a human life or the ethics of the 10 vs 1 problem. If they can save the one person, they save him. If they cannot save the 10 people, then the 10 people die. No doctor has the right to allow a patient to die when they have the ability to save them.