Moral Dilemma: What would you do?

Imagine you are a doctor at a top hospital.

You have six gravely ill patients, five of whom are in urgent need of organ transplants. You can’t help them, though, because there are no available organs. They will die without an immediate organ transplant.

The sixth patient, however, will die without a particular medicine. If s/he dies, you will be able to save the other five patients by using the organs of patient 6, who is an organ donor. What do you do?

  • Let 1 patient die & save 5 lives.
    18% (3)38% (10)30% (13)Vote
  • It's not your call to make: Let 5 patients die & save 1 life
    82% (14)62% (16)70% (30)Vote
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|0
7|8

Most Helpful Guy

  • There's no dilemma at all, doctors follow the Hypocratic Oath and it says they have to treat each patient as best as they can.

    0|4
    1|0

Most Helpful Girl

What Guys Said 7

  • you can't sacrifice a life (as a doctor) only to save the lives of others. that essentially would be like organ harvesting and basically is murder.

    you treat each patient the best you can. if one patient can be saved you save them. if that one patient dies after all efforts are made to save them then you can consider using their organs to help the other 5 patients

    1|0
    0|0
  • What the first option is, is executing one person. Regardless of your reasoning you are killing one person for the "grater good". This is a moralistic slippery slope that leads into the old debate on where individual rights end and the rights of the state begin.

    1|0
    0|0
  • No good solution to this. If I kill myself, all 6 will die so that's not a solution either.

    1|0
    0|0
  • Anyone who says Option A (Kill the one person to save the 5)
    ... so, why dont we kill YOU to use your organs to save the other 5 people, or maybe we could even save 10 people with your organs. I mean, your life is just the same as the person you are choosing to die... so let's just off you to save the others!

    1|0
    0|0
  • I guess option 1 may silently happen, the doc won't tell you :o
    But of course, B is the only valid option!

    1|0
    0|0
    • Yeah, i would definitely feel guilty regardless of who died, but I guess if I let the 1 patient die I would be burned with guilt forever... knowing he had died because I had withdrawn treatment from him 😊

    • Yeah I wonder if there are these rock hard businessman type of doctors who would make such decision... maybe we don't want to know the answer :o :-(

    • Burdened**

      Yeah, in some situations... It's better we don't know what really goes on 😖

  • I vote B, I wouldn't want to open myself to potential lawsuits or lose my career.

    1|0
    0|0
    • What if that was an impossibility in this scenario?

    • It's not my call to take the 6th patients life if they didn't consent to it.

      I'd consider explaining the situation to the 6th patient and seeing if they consent to sacrificing themselves for the other 5. If they agreed, signed their name to it and there was no possibility of it jeopardizing my career then I'd do it.

      Otherwise, no I wouldn't.

    • Okay, thank you! 👍😊

  • The one patient takes precedent over the 5 because they can survive on there own while the 5 need external help

    0|0
    0|0
    • He will die if he doesn't get his medicine. He is gravely ill too. You can't save all of them. You either have to save 1 patient or 5... in this scenario : if 1 lives then 5 die. If 5 live then 1 dies

    • Show All
    • Then I would definitely save the 1 person
      Don't wanna be sued for malpractice

    • Ok thank you

What Girls Said 6

  • The age old ethic question. Do you sacrifice one for more or not. Glad I'm not a doctor. But I'd rather have one family sad than five however cruel that may be. Realisticly: that would make me a killer and I'd probably get sued by the relatives of patient 6. It's fucked up either way, that's why I hate ethics >__< no right and no wrong as long as you give arguments.

    1|0
    0|0
    • Yeah, it all comes down to whether or not people place more value on 1 life or more. The people who say they would let the five die... what would their answer be if I then stated the five People are family members.

    • Yeah it all depends on the context. Like if that one person was a criminal it would be different. But it's fun to think about. Just sucks either way feels wrong xd

  • You would be bound by the Hippocratic Oath to help all of them as best you could without killing any of them.

    1|0
    0|0
  • I voted B. If I was a doctor (and, god willing, I will be soon), then I'd be obligated to do all I could to save the patients, bar hurting someone else. Ethically, morally, and legally, I couldn't kill someone to save others. It's not my decision to make.

    1|0
    0|0
  • I can't save 5 and kill one who needs only medecine cuz it will be like i stole her/his organs the others... just destiny I don't know , ah its so tough to be a doctor.. haha

    1|0
    0|0
  • If it's a top hospital then there would be a way. Let's just say the one patient who is in need of medicine is a very bad criminal and deserves to die.

    1|0
    0|0
  • good thing I'm not a doctor, I don't know what I would do, maybe try to help them all.

    1|0
    0|0
    • In this scenario you can't help them all 😊

    • Show All
    • Thank you for being honest. 😊

    • I'd rather save 5 people and lose 1 rather than lose 5 and save 1 regardless your damned if you do damned if you don't, there's no win win in that situation

Loading...