Whom will you save?

[Economist]

Just another lifeboat dilemma. You are a doctor, who has one dose of medication. You have 11 patients, one adult, and ten children. They all suffer from a fatal malady. You can either save the adult, or the ten children (the adult needs more medication). Whom will you save? The one adult, or the ten children?

 

[Fauken]

Just another lifeboat dilemma.

More like a trolley problem, and not exactly a question of philosophy.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Do the ten children have someone to raise them and care for them?

What is everone’s ages, and what is the health condition of each?

 

[meltzerboy2]

That’s a rather easy moral dilemma for me compared to other dilemmas: I would save the ten children. While every human life is precious and equal in value, in this case there are ten human lives, and children no less, who have their whole lives ahead of them, at stake. To me, that makes a difference. Further, I am not actively killing the adult but rather withholding my services. That too makes a difference.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Further, I am not actively killing the adult but rather withholding my services. That too makes a difference.

But then a doctor who refuses to help a sick person gets off for free. I think a different justification is what makes it acceptable.

 

[meltzerboy2]

What justification makes it acceptable for you?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The mere inability to help everyone makes it alright to choose in my eyes.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Would you possibly choose then to help only the adult instead of the children? Or do you have a preferred choice, as difficult as it is?

My secondary justification is passive neglect rather than active killing. However, my primary justification is based not on insufficient medication to help all (although this is an interesting justification) but sufficient medication to help more people, that is, ten instead of one. Further, the fact these are children plays a role in my decision, particularly if the adult is old (like me) and also ill. This is my own view, not necessarily in keeping with Catholic teaching or Jewish teaching, though probably more so with the latter.

Then again, one can make the dilemma even more complicated by having a few children who are very ill to begin with. In that case, maybe one would save the healthy adult and the healthier children rather than those who are ill, although I would NOT wish to be the doctor in such a situation.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Would you possibly choose then to help only the adult instead of the children? Or do you have a preferred choice, as difficult as it is?

I would choose what would bring the most good or save the most people so if the circumstances point to that then it’s likely.

 

[Economist]

I would choose what would bring the most good or save the most people so if the circumstances point to that then it’s likely.

But… but… but that is a utilitarian / consequentialist procedure. And that is a NO-NO for catholics.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Is the adult somehow key to the group’s survival? If not the doctor’s triage training wouldmake saving the 10 the obvious choice

 

[Economist]

Is the adult somehow key to the group’s survival? If not the doctor’s triage training wouldmake saving the 10 the obvious choice

Again, this is the utilitarian / consequentialist choice. The scenario is closed when the doctor makes his decision.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Wouldn’t that first qualifier simply be part of of duty to self preservation?
Secondly, how’s that differ from attempting to do good works? If all lives are roughly valuable, then 10 good works is greater than 1, right?

 

[Economist]

Wouldn’t that first qualifier simply be part of of duty to self preservation?
Secondly, how’s that differ from attempting to do good works? If all lives are roughly valuable, then 10 good works is greater than 1, right?

In my opinion, certainly.

 

[Beryllos]

Whom will you save? The one adult, or the ten children?

That’s a no-brainer. As the doctor, I would treat the 10 children…

… because then I will get payment from all 10 of their medical insurance plans.

As an @Economist, surely you agree.

 

[Economist]

As an @Economist, surely you agree.

Of course I agree, even if there is no insurance to consider. This is just a variation of the trolley dilemma. Better to have one perish and five survive, rather than five perish and one survive.

 

[mythbuster1]

The doctor isn’t killing the adult patient; the disease is. The doctor would save all 11 if he could, but since he can’t, he’s saving as many as he can.

 

[Babaganoush]

It isn’t consequentialist because in this case the ends don’t justify the means. He isn’t being asked to perform any action that is questionable.

There is nothing wrong with acting based on utility. Utility isn’t the ultimate reality though, and in many situations acting based on utility may be wrong.

If your resources are limited you aren’t expected to provide unlimited service.

 

[po18guy]

This reply being the exception, I find all such impossible hypotheticals to be a waste of the very limited amount of time I have left. I have enough difficulty worlking on the impossibility of myself.

Sorry for any offense, as none is intended.

 

[Economist]

The doctor isn’t killing the adult patient; the disease is. The doctor would save all 11 if he could, but since he can’t, he’s saving as many as he can.

Just like the bystander would save all the affected people, if he could.

It isn’t consequentialist because in this case the ends don’t justify the means.

The end - in and of itself can never justify the means. The end and the means TOGETHER can form a justifiable course of action, or they may not. This is the main point.

There is nothing wrong with acting based on utility.

Not in my eyes. But you will see a bunch of people saying otherwise.

Sorry for any offense, as none is intended.

No offense, but you wasted your time by stating that you are not interested. But it was your time. Of course you also wasted our time, too… but what the heck.