Is it ever morally wrong to save someone's life?

[Bagerl]

What do you think?

[docyoks]

Sure, no doubt. I'm a doctor, seen a lot of people with so much brain damage, no loved ones, with cancer, AIDS, mental ilness, failed suicide attempts, severe dementia, genetic disorders and so on.

It's not that I think they have no value, I just think we restrain their limbs, inject them with antibiotics, dyalisis, feed them through tubes, draw blood for tests, making them last longer, even if all doctors know for a fact that they won't make it.

Worse than that, although we agree thats a lot of money and resources wasted for no reason, because patient dont want, have no close family friends, nothing, nobody cares, but some would argue that somebody could sue us for being "immoral".

In the macro, this resources could easily be changed on a huge amount of simple antibiotics and pediatrics basic meds and paying nurses better, or into real psychiatry, which i'm sure is the most neglected medical specialty.

Ask yourself: is it moral obligating a dying 89y old who can't even breathe by himself, neither swallow or having any COUNSCIENCE, make they heart beat 2 weeks more, while sedating and on the ventilator?

now imagine if you could put them to rest, being really empathetic of her true wish. nobody would prefer 2 million spent on cleaning their ass while on chest tube, instead of saving 1000 poor crack babies, with Ceftriaxone or penicilin (LIKE REALLY SAVING, BECAUSE THIS KIND OF MEDS ARE ESSENTIAL AND PNEUMONIA AND MENINGITIS REALLY KILLS BABYS WHO doesn't GET THEM, AND DIFFERENTLY FROM THE FIRST CASE, THEY WOULD GROW UP JUST FINE IF didn't DIED FROM PNEUMONIA)

I would haunt doctors who make me last longer in cold hospital care, sedated, intubated, dyalisis, meds to shit, fed with liquid stuff and die after troubling a lot of people and making babys dies from pneumonia at the same, seriously.

But that just my opinion, and I respect other ones, i just think they really dumb, I'm not saying we shouldn't give intensive care for those who have loved ones, wish to live and so on.

I bet if you disagree would change your mind going 365 days to a hospital, i guarantee

[DJB72]

An argument could be made.

For example, you're in Switzerland with your camera and you see the entire WEF and WHO leadership team, led by Schwab himself, about to be buried by an avalanche. You could save them or shoot a prize winning photograph of the event but you don't have time to do both.

The question is, do you shoot the pullitzer-winning picture in full colour or classic greyscale/black and white?

With the evil these people do by promoting their agenda onto governments and controlling billions of lives by amassing vast fortunes while the poorest starve as a result of their inhumanity, I think classic black and white would be best...

[MemeSupreme]

yeah if saving them meant innocent lives were lost and you knew that'd happen

[Flatmanlewis]

Maybe if they have a DNR. I think the reality of emergencies many, many, people don’t comprehend is there is a triage process in some medical emergencies where limited resources exist. This is a battlefield reality but in todays world of modern living this could be an active shooter in a public place, a public transportation accident, or catastrophic level incident like an earthquake or explosion.


In this regard it may be morally questionable to expend resources trying to save a clearly unsalvageable person patient while a patient who can be saved with proper care decays to a point where death is imminent.


As far as saving a patient or not based on my perceptions of their beliefs and values? In nearly all cases I can imagine, I would do what I could to preserve their life.

[ohsheeT]

This is a hard question.
For me because it would also depend on the situation.

And to be honest what I just said above makes no sense to me because you have a split second to think you have a split second to do whatever it is you have to do before something else happens.

I have saved lives before and in the split second that I had I didn't think about nothing but pulling people out of a. Big red truck. Either knowing or thinking any moment something's going to happen and how I had to get to the truck. I was waiting for something to happen to me because it was non-stop it was just go and before you know it it is over with if you're lucky and I don't know I got a plaque LOL they said thank you for saving our lives

But if you're talking about somebody that wants to take their life I still couldn't let it happen I would intervene for sure if I could. Or if I was put in that position

[NamerOfStars]

Yes. The most obvious case is if the cost is too high- say, if it's MORE lives. But I'd also say that at a certain point, which I doubt I have the moral authority (and seriously doubt I have the wisdom) to identify, it's morally wrong to save someone who wants to die. The overwhelmed and temporarily suicidal is one thing, but the terminally ill? Those who have nothing ahead of them but fear and pain? Even if it's decades of fear and pain?

I watched my mother fade away and die of cancer, and every time I came back into the house and saw the "Do No Resuscitate" notice beside the door, it hurt- I knew it was the right thing to do, and Mom had explicitly made her wishes clear, but it hurt.

[Kaneki05]

Of course. Just as it can be morally right to kill someone.
If someone wants to argue otherwise let's put you in a room with hitler in the year of 1918 just before he joins DPA which then becomes the Nazi party and you know what will happen, and you have a gun easily ready to his head are you seriously not going to shoot?

[Bagerl]

I never said I wanted to argue otherwise. I said I wanted to know what you think about it.

[DarkLegacy]

This is a very good question and we need to be careful here. For instance some people think it is ok to not save the lives of the disabled, stating it is for their own good but what does the disabled think about this. Some people can be evil and just use that to justify not saving their lives. This happened a lot here in the UK during the pandemic, and it is important to remember that Hitler used this excuse to justify what he did.

But however if someone is seriously unwell or terminally unwell and have made the conscious decision to end their life then it could be morally wrong to save their life.

[molonski2]

Possibly in an extreme event where maybe they still held power ( Hitler or war crimes as an example ) , or a multi serial killer ( not yet convicted ) , where other lives and probably many lives were going to be lost via their survival?

[Avicenna]

Probably not. Can you suggest a possible scenario?

[Bagerl]

No, I can't think of any.

[Avicenna]

I once read a newspaper article about the medic who saved Hitler's life in WWI. He was consumed with guilt in the 1930s when Hiter rose to power. But how was he supposed to know Hitler would become what he did?

[Bagerl]

I read about that, too. I think that would be the closest to a gray area, when saving a life can indirectly cause death.

[strateguy632]

i guy starts shooting in a scool but slipd n bangd his head. i feel compassion "are you okay, pulse? need chest compression? let me help you stand up"! ugh. liberals. 🤮

[Chazmatazz269]

Of course not. The act of saving a life is inherently blessed, pragmatic at its worst. The reasons for saving a life or ending a life are what determines the morality of the choice.

[DaBiggestBird]

Mmm probably not. If it’s someone like Hitler or Stalin then I question it but I only see a situation where it’s fine even if they’re horrible. Well some people deserve to die so I guess it depends on who you’re saving

[ProbablyClueless]

If the person wants to die, or if you know they're basically guaranteed to hurt a lot of other people.

[Bricealan]

Can't imagine any circumstance that would make it morally 'wrong" ?

[JacobJordan]

A child molester, a rapist. Definitely morally wrong to save them, protect them or anything else. They should be gifted on a platter to the parents of the victim cause you know dads got some things he wants to do to that trash.

[DrPepper12]

Yes. My father. Child rapist. Let him bleed out of his ass after being repeatedly violated by a 2' spiked steel pipe.

[KrisKris81]

I can see morally justifiable... but "morally wrong" begs more questions. That's the kind of question you should ask an AI to see if it explodes.

[KrisKris81]

Actually... I just posed that question to Gemini and now I agree with it. This has actually frightened me a little.

https://gemini.google.com/app/f7b95e9f4a4265b9

[Mangospacho]

If you save someone who is trying to take someone else’s life and they go and take an innocent life then it’s wrong.

[Anonymous]

I would turn it around. Is it morally wrong to let a pedophile die if you can save his/her life?

[Bagerl]

Cool but before you turn it around, I'd appreciate an answer. I asked you first after all.

[Opinion Owner]

Do you mean like in the case of assisted suicide? Because you're being very specific.

[Bagerl]

I'm being literally the vaguest possible... do you think there's any scenario where it is morally wrong to save someone's life?

[ChicoFromThe305]

Nope

[jahaims]

Duh.

[Anonymous]

No, of course not.