The Choice (part 2)

[PKJ]

Pretend you're a doctor. You are working night shift in a hospital. Enters 3 deadly injured scientists. You are told they were about to discover the cure for AIDS when a suicide bomber blew inside the research facility. Also in the room, a young pastor with serious brain injury.

Here's the choice:

1) "Accidently" let the pastor die, take his organs and transplant them in the scientists. No one will ever know but you.

2) Heal the pastor, let the three scientists die.

Edit: Things to consider:

a) This is a "real" situation, no escape possible.
b) The 3 scientists are strict materialist atheists.
c) The pastor happens to have a very good liver, heart and kidney. Strangely, one of the scientists needs a liver, one needs a heart and one needs a kidney. All are of the right blood type.
d) There are no other available organs.

 

[knightlight72]

Who are we to decide who lives or dies? You do the best you can, and leave the rest up to God.

 

[Cian]

I all cases I could never cause harm to any living being. It would be a wonderful thing to save the scientists who hold the cure to AIDS, but in no instance could I let the pastor die only to use his organs to heal the scientists.

 

[FSTDT]

Pretend you're a doctor. You are working night shift in a hospital. Enters 3 deadly injured scientists. You are told they were about to discover the cure for AIDS when a suicide bomber blew inside the research facility. Also in the room, a young pastor with serious brain injury.

Here's the choice:

1) "Accidently" let the pastor die, take his organs and transplant them in the scientists. No one will ever know but you.

2) Heal the pastor, let the three scientists die.

Heal the pastor.

(Technically, its possible to use the organs of one of the scientists to implant into the other two. No need to kill the pastor if at least one of them dies. Given this, you will save at least 2 scientists and a 1 pastor.)

 

[""]

Pretend you're a doctor. You are working night shift in a hospital. Enters 3 deadly injured scientists. You are told they were about to discover the cure for AIDS when a suicide bomber blew inside the research facility. Also in the room, a young pastor with serious brain injury.

Here's the choice:

1) "Accidently" let the pastor die, take his organs and transplant them in the scientists. No one will ever know but you.

2) Heal the pastor, let the three scientists die.

First off, if I can't work on one man (pastor) and 3 scientists at the same time, then I can't work on 3 scientists at the same time. I am one person, and I have 2 hands. I would examine them all to see who's injuries were the most life threatening at the moment and go from there.

Your answers are unacceptable to me because they make no sense. Try working in an emergency room for a full shift and you'll see what I mean.

Btw, it wouldn't matter to me who had the most life threatening injury... pastor or scientist. That is the one who would get my first attention. However, if the one who is injured the worst, has little to no chance of recovery, then I move up the line to the next patient.

The pastor, if he knows Jesus, is going to heaven. The scientist, if he knows Jesus is going to heaven. So whoever dies, knowing Jesus, is going to a much better place. The only option that could be tossed into this mix, which would make me choose, would be if somebody could clarify their readiness for death (ie: do they know Christ or not). If 3 knew Christ and one did not, and all were injured to the same degree... I would work on the one who did not know Christ.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Here is the deal, how about asking the pastor? If he feels like it's his time to go, and would like to donate his organs, then so be it. Also, if those scientists found a cure for AIDS, I'm sure there notes are somewhere. Granted, a bomber blew up the place, but they must have notes on either a computer or on disc somewhere.

Medical Doctors will do their best to save everyone, but they will work only on those who need it the most and can be saved.

 

[Spinrad]

Pretend you're a doctor. You are working night shift in a hospital. Enters 3 deadly injured scientists. You are told they were about to discover the cure for AIDS when a suicide bomber blew inside the research facility. Also in the room, a young pastor with serious brain injury.

Here's the choice:

1) "Accidently" let the pastor die, take his organs and transplant them in the scientists. No one will ever know but you.

2) Heal the pastor, let the three scientists die.

Edit: Things to consider:

a) This is a "real" situation, no escape possible.
b) The 3 scientists are strict materialist atheists.
c) The pastor happens to have a very good liver, heart and kidney. Strangely, one of the scientists needs a liver, one needs a heart and one needs a kidney. All are of the right blood type.
d) There are no other available organs.

How far do you have to reach to make a point, here?

 

[PKJ]

I don't know, people always seem to invent ways to avoid making the dreaded choice, which is "KILL THE PASTOR!"

 

[ebia]

Also in the room, a young pastor with serious brain injury.

What do you mean by "serious brain injury"?

 

[Silent Bob]

The choise is yours there are no ways to save everybody or let one guy live it is a simple moral choice. And all it boils down to is this: Kill one person to cure AIDS or not.

I for one would not do it. As much as I'd like to see AIDS cured I still believe that murder is wrong.

 

[Lokisdottir]

If the pastor is a severely brain-damaged or brain-dead person who is on life support, I would pull the plug.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I've never much liked these questions that force you down to two options. I realize that you are trying to make a point, but even the way you phrase the question kind of herds people towards your manner of thinking. That is weighing the value of things and deciding which one is worthless. In reality situations where only two options exist are extremly rare. But we can easily create them in real life if we think about all decisions in terms of scales of pros and cons.

Irregardless I am still prepared to answer your question. As the morality of any action lies in the intent and the act, as opposed to the consequences, this is where we must look. And I think the pertinent question is "how can we avoid treating any person as merely a means?" Clearly we treat the pastor as a means when we harvest him for resources, in that case the pastor isn't a person so much as a receptacle and thus we deny his human dignity in the action. (You could also argue that we only want the scientists alive so that they may cure AIDS, but this is far less severe). I don't really see that we treat anyone as merely a means if we try to treat them all to the best of our abilities. If the scientists die as a result of this choice it is sad but ultimately unavoidable (at least if we want to act in a good and moral way). The world is not perfect, and living in a moral fashion does not guarantee anyone happiness, but we still must live as best we can.

 

[Toboe]

Let the pastor die and heal the scientists

 

[MoonlessNight]

I don't know, people always seem to invent ways to avoid making the dreaded choice, which is "KILL THE PASTOR!"

Which brings up the point that any consequentialist system can be twisted to call any action justified (or even required) given the right circumstances. We could just as easily kill half the hospital if we view this as simply a stastical comparison.

And that's not even getting into whether this actually works, considering that we must think about how our choices affect the fate of the entire universe for all time. Suppose these three scientists die the next day in a freak accident. Or even worse, perhaps after creating a cure for aids they create a super plague that wipes out the vast majority of humanity. I guess we should have just let them go in that case, huh?

 

[PKJ]

What if the pastor turns out to be a wacko and kills 2000 people with a cocktail of kool-aid and cyanide?

With "ifs" we can put Paris in a bottle...

 

[MoonlessNight]

What if the pastor turns out to be a wacko and kills 2000 people with a cocktail of kool-aid and cyanide?

With "ifs" we can put Paris in a bottle...

Hence why I do not make moral decisions based on the consequences of said decisions, but stick to intentions and the act itself.

 

[levi501]

Well I think the hypothetical was worded with a lot of wiggle room so I'll go with what I believe to be the intent rather than trying to be creative.
I assume the point is you have the option to kill someone and the result of it will be a cure to a disease that kills millions?

My choice... bye bye pastor.

 

[AstroFan]

How seriously injured is the pastor? Would I have to physically do something to him to make him die or is it something where if he isn't treated he would pass away on his own, but I would technically be responsible(I realize you said I wouldn't be caught) for negligence?

On one hand I save 1 life, on the other I save 3 lives and thus allow those 3 to save the lives of many others. I would probably have to lean towards the scientists.

 

[jayem]

How far do you have to reach to make a point, here?

I was thinking the same thing. I'm still trying to figure out what kind of explosion would irreparably damage one victim's heart, one victim's liver, and another's kidneys. With presumably no other major life threatening injuries. And then we have a potential organ donor at hand who's an acceptable tissue match to all three.

With all due respect to the OP, the more contrived the hypothetical, the weaker the point being illustrated.

 

[Archivist]

Option 3:

Steal the resaerch notes out of the pockets of the three scientists.

Sell them on e-bay for millions.

Use the money to buy a condo on St. Martin.

Retire there with the beautiful blonde operating room nurse!