Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 19:25:05
In reply to Why they are different » alexandra_k, posted by snoozin on February 28, 2005, at 18:22:57
> I think that the doctor must operate and save the one man. The reason this differs from the first scenario is that there was no other option in the train situation. Someone was going to die.
But in this case if he acts to save one man then 6 others die because they do not get the organs they need.
> In the physician situation, there are a few variables. One, the doc has a duty to his patient. The other folks on the donor list are *not* his patient and he has no ethical or professional duty to them.
Ok. Suppose they are all his patients??
>Two, the donor universe is not closed and those other people could possibly receive donations from others. Of course there's also the possibility the seriously injured guy isn't a match for the others. All that.
Can we suppose that it is inevitable that they will die without? Perhaps they need the organs within a certain amount of time and their time is almost up... Suppose that he is a perfect match... I agree the case is highly improbable. I just need it to be POSSIBLE though..
If our only options are(a) save 1 (by operating) and 6 die or
(b) let one die (by not operating) to save 6.Does this change what you think should be done?
poster:alexandra_k
thread:464571
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/464595.html