Posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 14:54:03
In reply to Re: (2) One or Six???, posted by Broken on March 1, 2005, at 7:18:29
> I agree. The two senarios are different, for me personally.
But it is hard to specify just how they are different...
>The second would be an easier call. I would owe that person the very best treatment possible. Even if he were a guaranteed match for all 6, I'd still have to save him.
But don't you owe the other 6 people the best treatment possible as well??? Especially if every patient in the case is YOUR patient...
> I think the interesting part is when do the numbers change your moral stance? 6 is not enough, but what if it were 60? Then I would toss my professional morals and save the 60.
Aaaah. Yes. Just because there is a fuzzy boundary doesn't mean there isn't one. I do hear what you are saying... But you seem to think that your professional morals would dictate that this is an immoral act. Do you want to say it is an immoral act - or that all things considered it is actually the moral thing to do?
> Funny how right or wrong seem to change in my mind as the numbers change. At what point do the needs of one outweigh the needs of the many? (The Star Trek thing was just begging to be used)Yeah. You can do the same thing with 'we should send $1 to charity. We should send $2 to charity etc. Until you send everything you have to charity and find yourself dying on the street.
> This is headed toward an even bigger question that is pertinent to today's headlines, but I won't go there for fear of all hell breaking loose.Please do go there. You could start it on a new thread.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:464571
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/464986.html