[Anon] [Text]

[crouching_sin]

Here's a question for you all. It's something that I read a while back, and I'm interested in your answers. Anonymous is fine, if you want.

There are five patients in a hospital. All of them are dying due to complications with various organs. All of them will die within the next day or so if they don't get an organ transplant. Magic won't save any of them, incidentally, if you were hoping to use that.

A young backpacker comes into the hospital or a checkup. He has no relatives, and he is in excellent health. As it happens, you, the surgeon on duty, notice that he is a perfect match for all five of the patients.

Assuming the backpacker does not give consent, is it morally permissible to cut him up and transfer the organs to the other patients? These are not organs that the backpacker can live without, so he'll die if you do.

I'm interested to hear what you think.

Comments

text;

[scratchitti]

I can see the logic for saying yes. One life for five. The ends justifying the means. Someone might ask more info on the patients. Their input into society. Their ages, if they have family, etc.

But I still wouldn't say it's morally right. It's DEF. unethical since a doctor swears to do no intentional harm. But honestly morality and ethics have nothing to do with logic anyways. If it was me dying, or someone important to me, I don't know for sure what I'd say.

I'd... LIKE to say no, which is really all anyone can really say and still be honest.

[anon text forever]

[crouching_sin]

You'd like to say no? What you'd like and what the right thing to do aren't always the same thing. Isn't it better, as you said, to save five people? The backpacker has no one who's going to miss him.

[text]

[scratchitti]

Then the value of a life is only in what they offer to others? If the backpacker has no family or friends, it's like he doesn't exist? I can't accept that.

[crouching_sin]

That depends. Maybe the backpacker would go on to make a mark on history, but odds are that he wouldn't. The odds are somewhat better among five people.

[scratchitti]

Well that assumes that a life is measured by what they do in their life. I just don't agree with that. EVERYONE is a world of potential and possibility you can't ever predict.

You either have to agree that every life is precious or no life is- either way it's ruins the choice as anything other then self serving. There's no purely logical way to do it.

[crouching_sin]

True. It depends on your ethics. It's a question usually used to introduce a concept called 'utilitarianism' - basically, maximizing potential happiness and minimizing pain.

[scratchitti]

Which is something everyone tries to do. And we all try and do it at the expense of others. I know I did.

But... I dunno, I don't like the idea that it's a limited resource. Or even that losing the chance to experience more invalidates what you already had. But I guess I kinda have a weird experience when it comes to death. Pain is something worth experiencing too.

[crouching_sin]

It depends. People have so little time in life... it makes sense at a basic level, though when you pick it apart it starts becoming less clear.

And... oh? Do you? What kind of 'weird experience'?