[nikp]

 
Hello! I came across this lecture from Harvard that was shown on Youtube and I find it very interesting. Anyway, long story made short, if you're in certain types of situation, what would you do and why would you do such thing? What does your conscience say to you?
 
Rules: Read 1st situation (without peeping at the 2nd situation), make a decision. Then read the 2nd situation, decide.
 
 

Spoiler: Situation%201

You are an experienced surgeon and you're in an emergency room. There is one critical injured person and five people in a less critical condition. If you save one, you lose the other five. But if you save the five, you'll lose one. What would you do? 5 vs 1.

 
 

Spoiler: Situation%202

Same doctor. Same place. Five critically injured patients (2 men, 3 women). One needs a heart, the other a kidney, etc. But you don't have the resources. Suddenly you notice someone (a young man) in the other room sleeping soundly after a medical checkup. You can either leave the five critically injured patients (seconds do count) and let them die or creep to the person next door and take out all the organs (he dies!) but save 5 people. 5 vs 1.

 
Enjoy the dilemma! 

 

[nikp]

My personal decisions:
 
1st situation - save the five
2nd situation - do nothing (call other hospitals and driving mad to get an organ to save at least a life)
 

 

[rroseperry]

First Situation: Save the five, not really a choice.
Second Situation: This isn't really analogous to the first and seriously, get on the phones and get some support.

 

[Head Injury]

I harvest the sleeping guy and sell his organs to the hospital under an alias via the black market. Everyone's happy. Except the sleeping guy.

 

[nikp]

Quote:

I harvest the sleeping guy and sell his organs to the hospital under an alias via the black market. Everyone's happy. Except the sleeping guy.

That is why you'll never be accepted into med school. 

 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

That is why you'll never be accepted into med school. 

If I murder a perfectly healthy man for his organs, I won't be accepted into med school, regardless of my intentions.
 
How much jail time would organ trafficking net me? I wonder how it compares to plain old murder.

 

[Magedark]

I would save the one in the first choice, and not harvest him last one.

Seriously though, why not wake him up? These questions are good, but sometimes I think they try to quantify people too much. I think there are more factors than how ill, and how many. But still, good questions.

 

[nikp]

Quote:

I would save the one in the first choice, and not harvest him last one.
Seriously though, why not wake him up? These questions are good, but sometimes I think they try to quantify people too much. I think there are more factors than how ill, and how many. But still, good questions.

True, there are much more factors than the ones mentioned. But I guess the lecturer wants to keep things short and get to his point whether you base your decisions on the consequences that will happen or the action involved.
 

 

[appophylite]

In the first situation, it is really a difference between putting effort and resources into saving the most lives possible - basic triage. If it is one doctor (you) for six patients in the condition specified - the resources dictate that more effort be thrown at saving five less critically injured lives, especially when you consider that if you spend the time with the more critically injured patient, you could lose all 5 less critically injured patients while trying to save the one, and then still lose the one later due to complications.
 
The second situation isn't really a dilemma at all: you have a perfectly healthy man who is in the hospital for a check-up: ergo he is a patient. Even if he were awake and could tell you to kill him for an organ harvest, it would be illegal as long as we live in something approaching working society with laws (the circumstances would be different if we didn't live in the type of society we do, or society were to fall apart). In this case, the dilemma is only how much to be PO'd at the hospital for placing you in this position in the first place - all you can do is try to get the support and resources necessary to save as many of the 5 patients as you possibly can.

 

[youngngray]

First situation, (I know, I know), I would actually save the 1. Why might you ask? Because we can never have perfect information. Therefore, you should always try to save the more critically injured person(s) first. And who knows, maybe you get lucky and finish the first one fast, or maybe the other 5 aren't in such bad shape. Either way there should still be other doctors there too. Plus, if you're a better surgeon, it would make more sense for you to take the more difficult case. In a (more) real situation, you probably won't even have time to make the assessment outlined in situation 1 anyway, so without even knowing it, you'll choose to save the one. I know others will make a case against me, but that's my logic for the real world.
 
Situation 2 isn't really a situation. Killing someone for their organs is illegal period. Just do your best to find legitimate sources for the organs. Sad? Yes. Unfortunate? Absolutely. Anything you can do about it? Not really.

 

[Czilla9000]

Ya, that's Michael Sandel, a moral philosopher at Harvard. He's quite famous.
 
Fun Fact: It's widely held that Michael Sandel is the basis for Mr. Burns on The Simpsons. The irony being that Mr. Burns is extremely immoral. 
 
 

 

[nikp]

Quote:

Ya, that's Michael Sandel, a moral philosopher at Harvard. He's quite famous.
 
Fun Fact: It's widely held that Michael Sandel is the basis for Mr. Burns on The Simpsons. The irony being that Mr. Burns is extremely immoral. 
 
 

 
That's what I've always thought. He looks a bit like Mr. Burns.