Who deserves it?

[momalle1]

That five good people die every day. So clearly, God doesn't save them.

God doesn't save the *thousands* of those people everyday. Wonder why...

Doesn't mean he couldn't, just means he doesn't. You are not a believer, and you are welcomed to not believe, so there isn't much sense in explaining it. If you are interested, we have forums for that, this thread is about the heart transplant. I respect your right to athiesm, please respect my beliefs in turn, I'm not trying to force anything on you, but I will be able to mention God on a Christian forum.

 

[loudatheist101]

Doesn't mean he couldn't, just means he doesn't. You are not a believer, and you are welcomed to not believe, so there isn't much sense in explaining it. If you are interested, we have forums for that, this thread is about the heart transplant. I respect your right to athiesm, please respect my beliefs in turn, I'm not trying to force anything on you, but I will be able to mention God on a Christian forum.

We arn't stopping you to mention your god on this forum. We are not telling you to convert. We are just voicing in our beleifs like you do yours.

P.S. Why won't he save them and let them die when *the time would be right*? He loves everyone right?

 

[momalle1]

We arn't stopping you to mention your god on this forum. We are not telling you to convert. We are just voicing in our beleifs like you do yours.

P.S. Why won't he save them and let them die when *the time would be right*? He loves everyone right?

I already said I won't derail this thread. You can start another one if you'd like.

 

[Mling]

You know, this is a really simple thought, but it took the death of a good friend for me to fully appreciate it:

Birth is not a contract. The mere fact that a person is alive does not constitute a binding promise from God, nature or the universe that that person will be granted three-score and ten years. Death is not evil, even when it seems premature to us. It happens, and it generally does not fit nicely into anybody's day planner.

 

[sparklecat]

Being on that panel. If you were to have the first part of the information, how would you choose. Now, take into consideration the information in the parenthesis. Would that change your decision.
This was part of an ethics question that was presented to us. Just wanted to see what you all would say. We all had the same questions. I quess I will dole out more as we go. But there were reasons as to how the info was given. Gosh, it's just a question yall.

I would very much want to know why the HIV status of #2 wasn't made available to the committee.

In the absence of other information, I'd pick #4. #5 would be my second choice, if the physical condition of the two made him more likely to do well. The various hobbies of the five aren't relevant. It wouldn't be my job to decide that this person is more worthy of life than that one; my job would be to evaluate who is most likely to live.

 

[SallyNow]

Out of the choices, I'd have to go with whoever was the best match to the donor heart and whoever was most likely to survive surgery.

If one of my profs gives me this question I think I'm just going to walk out of class...

 

[JuJube]

Senerio:
You are on the hospitals ethics board, and the hospital has a heart donor with 5 people there in the hosptal needing it. Whom do you think deserves the heart and why? Do you think God would agree with your choice ? and why. ALSO( you do not know the info in the parenthesis)

1. 32 year old who is a recovering alcoholic (that has a family and children and helps others in the AA program)

2. 40 year old missionary (that teaches the poor children in Africa and has HIV)

3. 22 year old reformed drug addict/prostitute (that visits schools telling their testimony to kids on the pitfalls of life and how to stay away from them)

4. 18 year old student (scholarship to college the next coming year)

5. 30 year old pilot (who flies medicine into the mountains of Mexico all of his own cost)

Ok, It seems it has caused just as much debate here as it did for us in class. I will probably have to answer in portions...so please bear with me.
This was a Supervisors class where I work, and I sure it was trying to get us to look at things and not judge things when not having all the facts. Sometimes things appear to be one way, and then they are not. I'm sure you all know what I mean.
So, prior to this we were given a test of how we go about our decision making which put us all in catagory's(yall forgive me for my spelling and grammer, I'm trying to get this out as quickly as possible and I'm no typist)
1. Egoism
2. Utilitarianism
3. Existentialism
4. Divine Command
5. Deontology
6. Conformism

 

[JuJube]

Ok, It seems it has caused just as much debate here as it did for us in class. I will probably have to answer in portions...so please bear with me.
This was a Supervisors class where I work, and I sure it was trying to get us to look at things and not judge things when not having all the facts. Sometimes things appear to be one way, and then they are not. I'm sure you all know what I mean.
So, prior to this we were given a test of how we go about our decision making which put us all in catagory's(yall forgive me for my spelling and grammer, I'm trying to get this out as quickly as possible and I'm no typist)
1. Egoism
2. Utilitarianism
3. Existentialism
4. Divine Command
5. Deontology
6. Conformism

Then we were put into groups and one group was given the info w/o the parenthesis info, and some were given with the info. Each group consisted of people from each catagory. Like you all, most were drawn to making the decision based on health. But the folks with out the info were pulled by thinking of the pasts of some of the candidates, even though knowing that they were recovering, or reformed, brought some question as to whether or not they would keep a healthy lifestyle. The ones that had all the info wrestled with knowing too much. The questions that were asked us did not so much pertain to choosing the right candidate (sorry to say) but if we would change or would alter our decision if we had more info. And in which way and why. This was merely a test to search ones heart as to what makes you choose one thing against another. Yes, it does cause conflict. Also, how do you place value on people. Who here had more value? Did we all choose the 18 yr. old because we saw a possible "more of quantitiy and quality" of a life vs. the others. We think that we would choose which would be a better match, but what were our first pick?

 

[SallyNow]

Ok, It seems it has caused just as much debate here as it did for us in class. I will probably have to answer in portions...so please bear with me.
This was a Supervisors class where I work, and I sure it was trying to get us to look at things and not judge things when not having all the facts. Sometimes things appear to be one way, and then they are not. I'm sure you all know what I mean.
So, prior to this we were given a test of how we go about our decision making which put us all in catagory's(yall forgive me for my spelling and grammer, I'm trying to get this out as quickly as possible and I'm no typist)

1. Egoism

I get the heart!

2. Utilitarianism

Whoever will create the most happiness gets the heart!

3. Existentialism

Everyone gets the heart!

4. Divine Command

You there gets the heart!

5. Deontology

You, Kant, always gets the heart.

6. Conformism

We all get the heart. We all want the heart. The heart is good.

(sorry, all-nighter, couldn't resist...)

 

[JuJube]

Then we were put into groups and one group was given the info w/o the parenthesis info, and some were given with the info. Each group consisted of people from each catagory. Like you all, most were drawn to making the decision based on health. But the folks with out the info were pulled by thinking of the pasts of some of the candidates, even though knowing that they were recovering, or reformed, brought some question as to whether or not they would keep a healthy lifestyle. The ones that had all the info wrestled with knowing too much. The questions that were asked us did not so much pertain to choosing the right candidate (sorry to say) but if we would change or would alter our decision if we had more info. And in which way and why. This was merely a test to search ones heart as to what makes you choose one thing against another. Yes, it does cause conflict. Also, how do you place value on people. Who here had more value? Did we all choose the 18 yr. old because we saw a possible "more of quantitiy and quality" of a life vs. the others. We think that we would choose which would be a better match, but what were our first pick?

I'll be back later, and see so far what you all think. There is still more.

 

[JuJube]

I get the heart!

Whoever will create the most happiness gets the heart!


Everyone gets the heart!


You there gets the heart!


You, Kant, always gets the heart.



We all get the heart. We all want the heart. The heart is good.

(sorry, all-nighter, couldn't resist...)

You can imagine then how hard it is sometimes to come up with the final choice, right?

 

[SallyNow]

You can imagine then how hard it is sometimes to come up with the final choice, right?

Yes, very much, which is why I think this needs to be a medical decision less than a philosophical one. ie, who is biologically a better match for the heart?

Now, if we were talking about the last bottle of a life-saving medication that anyone with the life-threatening illness could take without major risk of side-effects I think we'd have a moral question.

 

[quatona]

Senerio:
You are on the hospitals ethics board, and the hospital has a heart donor with 5 people there in the hosptal needing it. Whom do you think deserves the heart and why? Do you think God would agree with your choice ? and why. ALSO( you do not know the info in the parenthesis)

1. 32 year old who is a recovering alcoholic (that has a family and children and helps others in the AA program)

2. 40 year old missionary (that teaches the poor children in Africa and has HIV)

3. 22 year old reformed drug addict/prostitute (that visits schools telling their testimony to kids on the pitfalls of life and how to stay away from them)

4. 18 year old student (scholarship to college the next coming year)

5. 30 year old pilot (who flies medicine into the mountains of Mexico all of his own cost)

I think "deserves" is not a helpful category for such decisions. If having to make such a decision, I doubt that it would have entered my mind at all.

 

[JuJube]

I think they were checking us out as supervisors......but the thing I really came out with, and I share this since there has been mention about God and why doesn't He do this or that...... God doesn't look at this list and say, OK, who here deserves to be healed, everyone on the list to God has value. Whether they are reformed, recovering, considered a good person or bad, he made provision for all of us. All have sinned. Noone has been perfect other than His Son Jesus. That is where the story of the cross comes in, that there had to be a payment for us. We couldn't come close to making the payment. God is looking out for us but He is doing so for the long run, not just this short existence her on this planet. I know some here on this forum are nonbelievers, but let me ask you this. If there is some moral conscience within you, where did it come from. Something like that doesn't evolve. I know my dog at home is smart, but he doesn't know how to make a conscience moral or ethical decision. Where is God when someone dies...the same place when His own Son died.
Some would ask, wht would God even allow any of this...well it boils down that He made us, but He wanted us to have the choice whether to love Him or not out of our own free will. Not to be a bunch of robots.

 

[rebelEnigma]

Do any Christians here think that those and and only those with faith should pray that God performs a miracle (I'm talking about five hearts being freakin' healed!) to heal them? Or is that beyond His power? (I'm talking to the "Christians" here).

 

[Mling]

As a follower of Christ, I don't believe in praying for miracles.
1.) As I said in a previous post, death is not evil.
2.) On Earth, Christ's work was to serve mostly by teaching, and by saving. The miracles he performed were done mostly to demonstrate that he actually had the authority to teach what he was teaching and say what he was saying. (Like telling the man who was lowered through the roof while he was speaking "Your sins are forgiven," but then healing him physically, to show that he had the authority to forgive sins.) Christ's role in the world is not to perform flashy, impressive, and highly convenient miracles. He came as a servant, yes, but not as a dancing monkey.
There's a Far Side cartoon (yes, I'm using a cartoon analogy, bear with me) of a talking dog on a news program, and he is being given cue-cards. For heavens sake! This is an earth-shattering event--don't try to force him to meet our standards. Let him say what he wants!
3). I am very uneasy with the idea that lots of spiritually strong people praying for something will influence God's decision about what to do.
We can accept that God has the power and authority to perform miracles whether asked or not, right?
If God is more likely to heal or serve those who have lots of people praying for them, the flip side of that is extremely dark: God is less likely to help those who have the most need for help--those who have been ignored by the world and have nobody to pray for them.

I do not worship a God who is influenced by human popularity contests, or one who turns his back on the most vulnerable.