An ethical dilemma

[Dimentio]

Lets say that we have three patients, two would need one new kidney each, and one who would need a new heart. You have no replacement organs available. Then, a patient with a broken leg is rolled in on the hospital.

You are the head surgeon.

The patient with a broken leg has functioning kidneys and a functioning heart.

You could save the lives of three people by killing off one.

What would you do?

Kill of the patient with a broken leg to give his organs to the three needy patients, or let them pass away and treat the broken leg?

[Forward Union]

You're asking me if I am a utilitarian or not?

I am not.

[bezdomni]

Is the guy with a broken leg a fascist?

[Luís Henrique]

It depends.

Do you want people to trust hospitals, or to fear them?

Luís Henrique

[spartan]

There is no dilemma as doctors arent allowed to play God with peoples lives (Thank God).

[Cult of Reason]

Why not kill the guy needing a heart instead (who, it would seem to me, would have the shortest life expectancy) and share out his kidneys to the people needing them? There is no reason to add the broken-legged person to the equation.

[LSD]

Sorry but I don't quite see where the "dilemma" is. The life of those three patients only matters if the life of the fourth does as well

Besides, even looked at solely mathematically, you're scenario doesn't work. Killing the final patient and distributing his organs among the other three would render three stable patients, and one dead one. On the other hand merely removing his kidneys and keeping him alive would render two stable patients, one patient on renal dialysis, and one in critial condition awaiting heart replacement.

Finally, doing nothing to the final patient would leave you with one stable patient, two on dyalisis, and one critical awaiting heart replacement.

So even leaving aside issues of individual rights or the pragmatics of allowing doctors to murder their patients (:rolleyes:), your solution is not optimal.

[Dimentio]

The Swedish philosopher Torbjörn Tännsjö has proposed the killing of patients of that reason, as long as it could be kept "secret".

[vivalarevolucion!]

Lets say that we have three patients, two would need one new kidney each, and one who would need a new heart. You have no replacement organs available. Then, a patient with a broken leg is rolled in on the hospital.

You are the head surgeon.

The patient with a broken leg has functioning kidneys and a functioning heart.

You could save the lives of three people by killing off one.

What would you do?

Kill of the patient with a broken leg to give his organs to the three needy patients, or let them pass away and treat the broken leg?
kill the guy who needs a heart because heart transplants don't always work and he has 2 working kidneys

[Luís Henrique]

The Swedish philosopher Torbjörn Tännsjö has proposed the killing of patients of that reason, as long as it could be kept "secret".

Do we want hospitals doing secretive things?

How would one prevent physicians, nurses, hospital receptionists from spilling the truth?

Of course, if hospitals are places where you can go in with a broken leg and end dead because the harvest your organs, no one will go to hospitals (not even the three first patients).

If this is the kind of thing that we envision as "socialism", let me make clear that I prefer old murderous capitalism.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

The Swedish philosopher Torbjörn Tännsjö has proposed the killing of patients of that reason,

Why don't we kill Torbjörn Tännsjö instead? It very much looks we wouldn't lose anything valuable at all. The only handicap is that we obviously would not be able to use his brains to any end besides feeding the garbage basket.

Luís Henrique

[Schrödinger's Cat]

As long as they're still living, they still have a say over what goes in and out of their own body -- and if unable to respond that responsibility goes to their immediate caretaker(s).

[rocker935]

As said before, doctors shouldn't be murding patients. Personally as a doctor, I would ask the man with the failing heart if you would donate his two kidneys. I would try to be as sensitive as possible but I would never force it on him.