Poll: Kill one to save ten?

[Mephisteus]

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.

Oh yes, "Sir, I can save you. But because you're a donor I'd rather you die, what do you think?". I'd think you'd have taken a wrong turn on profession-lane.

As a doctor your concern is for the patient you are treating *right now*, not for the gazillion you're not. You don't ask every non-dying patient in a hospital if they want to kill themselves in an as clean as possible fashion, so you've got more donor organs. Get real.

 

[Queen Michael]

The way I see it, no matter your decision you're "playing God", for want of a better expression. Either you decide that ten people could be saved are to die, or that a guy who could have lived is going to die. So I'd save the ten.

If one life is precious enough to be saved, shouldn't ten lives be ten times as precious? To save just one instead of ten is like if a library was one fire, and you could save either one chapter of For Whom the Bell Tolls or the entire A Farewell to Arms, and you choose to save the one chapter instead of the entire novel, you're clearly making a bad decision. The same thing goes for people; choose the alternative with the híghest amount of saved lives.

 

[fedpayne]

No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise.

 

[Crowser]

If someone had a gun and said he was going to kill 10 people or 1 person right in front of me, I'd choose the one. But this scenario is completely different; as a doctor I am here to save people, not decide who gets to live and who gets to die. And they are his organs after all, he has a right to them (unless he dies).

 

[Queen Michael]

As a doctor I am here to save people, not decide who gets to live and who gets to die. And they are his organs after all, he has a right to them (unless he dies).

Deciding who gets to live and who doesn't is something you'll be doing no matter what you choose. If you think it's more ethical to save the one man because he has a right to his organs, that's a legitimate choice, but you are the one making the decision.

 

[Lukeje]

since when does a man have enough vital organs he can save 10 other people............

yes

Hmmm... I count six vital organs (Edit: that are likely to be transplanted)... heart, lungs, 2 x kidney, liver, skin. Although the skin could go to 5 people. Maybe.

FYI your list should read, Lungs x2...

I only included 'lungs' (not lungs x2) because I assumed that they could only go to one person. Is it possible to save two people with one pair of lungs?

 

[Arkhangelsk]

So hard to choose. It feels so heartless to et a man die, he never saw it coming, but it would be just as heartless to let them die. I have to say no, the man hasn't done anything, I haven't gotten his permission. He was in an accident, its then my job to treat him, regardless of the conditions.

 

[Arcticflame]

No. If word got out I had done such a thing, Ignoring my own legal woes, it would also add mistrust in the health system. The wider ramifications of such an act is terrible, it shouldn't be done.

Of course this is assuming I can't just let the guy die because I was busy, but even then I don't think I would, it's not right to let someone die because he signed himself as an organ donor. You are basically killing off someone because they did the right thing.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I'd let whoever I disliked more die. Sure, it's possible for one person to be more valuable to me than ten others. And frankly, I don't give a damn about the arithmetic. People should be equal under the law; that doesn't really have much of anything to do with choosing who dies. There's no "correct" answer to this question. Bioethics is just shit people made up.

 

[Sebenko]

Depends. if it's someone I know, while I didn't know the others, I'd save the one and let the others go fuck themselves.

Selfish? yes. Do I care? no.

In the doctor example, it would have to be save the one, due to the Hippocratic oath.

 

[spuddyt]

I voted before reading the post - actually I would just do my job and save the one person rather than doing something that could get me accused of malpractice.
On a side note, saving 10 people? That guy must have a lot of organs.

 

[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.

however, using a line from the 3 laws of robotics, you may not hurt someone though your action or inaction. (this was also meant as how humans should live)

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Note the critical distinction at the beginning of the law. This law was created to be used to dominate a newly formed intelligence.

I'm only a couch philosopher, but I see some real problems with applying this law to humanity.

This law implies domination and submission and the three laws allow no space for the parties in either camp to switch sides without the breach of at least one of the three laws i.e. bloody discourse.

Ultimately the question positited initially is the first part of a philosophical exercise designed to demonstrate that "Right" and "Wrong" in decision making is not a binary condition and that consquences of action and inaction and their (de)merits must be considered also.

 

[Brown Cap]

If it were specifically THAT situation, then yes. I prolly would do it

 

[Catchy Slogan]

Wouldn't you get fined or go to prison, for gross negligence resulting in death. That would be just as bad as going out and butchering someone on the street.

You would be unfairly taking a mans life away, and you would be killing him. Does he not get the right to choose whether he lives or dies? It's his life, I think he gets the right to be a little selfish about that.

What if the other people have ruined thier organs and plan to go out and ruin their newe ones. You will have killed a man for nothing. A man who could have a possible future, who could have a family, friends, people who might depend on him being alive.

Just because the guy has an organ donor card doesn't mean he's going to become a martyr, because I'm guessing he's expecting to donate them after he dies, when he doesn't need them.

Also it is highly unlikely that the donor will be a match to all 10 people.

/rant.

 

[crepesack]

Yes I would in a discrete way, like oops i knicked an artery, and let him bleed out or rush the nurse and make her make a typographical error that would cause here to put down type A blood instead of type B for transfusion. So i won't get sued

 

[Baneat]

First do no harm

You can't according to the oath

religious view

It's not our job to balance the books, that's the work of God (not my view anyway)

For the greater good? maybe.

 

[WeedWorm]

Yes, yes I would.

Expect, obviously, thats very illegal and unethical in the case of a doctor.

 

[space_oddity]

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

Vital organs are almost as delicious as fried babies.

 

[Crusader078]

If there was no other option, then yes I would kill one person to save ten others.

 

[RetiarySword]

In this situation, no. That man deserves the right to continue his life as much as the rest of them. If I was a doctor I wouldn't even think of that.