Posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 2:06:04
In reply to Re: (2) One or Six???, posted by Rach on March 2, 2005, at 1:11:30
> I wasn't saying that it's ok to 'let die', but that in the unchangeable scenario presented, to me it's preferable for 6 people to die unattributed to my actions, than for 1 person to be murdered by me.
But we could describe it thus:
It is preferable for 6 people to die as a result of my inaction than for one person to die as a result of my action.
Is 'inaction' preferable to 'action'?
I talked about this a bit with respect to the 'active' 'passive' distinction in the euthenasia case...
> So I'm guaranteed to save the man, and 6 others are guaranteed to die? If I didn't save the man, would the 6 be guaranteed to live with their new organs? (I assume so). Still, save the man. They're his organs!Yes. It is supposed to be guaranteed that they will live if given the organs. They are his organs (while he is alive). But the point is whether you should interveane to keep him alive or let him die in order to save the others. You will wait till he dies to harvest the organs..
> What if I presented a situation where there are 8 people waiting for organs who will die without them, and live with them. A man walks into your office who is a match for all of them, but he is perfectly healthy. Would you suffocate that man to pass on his organs and save 8 other people?Good case :-)
It might be thought that in order to be consistent I would have to say 'yes'. So I shall have to do some fast talking...
1) If there are other possible sources of organ donors then no - it is not morally justified. But then it is easy enough for you to strengthen the case so that that is not an option - put them on the island or something ;-)
2) If other people hear I have done this I dare say that I will no longer get any patients. It could also inspire mass fear of going to see a doctor. The consequences of that would be pretty bad... So let us strengthen the case so that nobody will find out as a matter of principle...
3) Okay, yes, that is ok (given the strongest version of the case). I would prefer to administer a lethal injection over strangulation, but sure kill him to save 6.But this case wouldn't happen in the real world. So in a way it may be senseless to say that there is a certain course of action that *should* be done.
But here is a related case:
You and 6 others survive a plane crash. You are all starving... Nobody has come... Is it okay to kill one to feed the rest??? (Assuming you ALL will die without). We may also have to suppose that all of you fully believe that a person will most likely die of shock if you go lopping bits off.
What do ya think???
poster:alexandra_k
thread:464571
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/465318.html