Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Jay w on 25 November 2008, 22:15:01
-
you have a healthy person, potentially they could save the lives of 5 people who required various organ transplants.
Heart
Kidney x2
Liver
Lungs
so heres the dilemma.......
do you sacrifice one person to save 5
please note this is just a hypothetical....
-
Is it your choice or theres? ::)
-
I would get into trouble if I suggested that there are those in the population that perhaps should be scrificed for the beneift of the majority :-X
-
Keep the one person.... carbon footprint and all that to consider :D
-
I would get into trouble if I suggested that there are those in the population that perhaps should be scrificed for the beneift of the majority :-X
Hadn't thought along those lines.... guess that would be two of us in trouble then....... :-X
-
is this "donor" a tax dodging benifit leeching illegal immigrant?
-
no this is nothing to do with tax or carbon foot printing, nor are we talking about 'culling' part of the population...
its more the ethic of killing someone to benefit 5 lives
this person is mr/mrs/miss/ms average who lives a normal life
-
Even hypothetically it's a hard question to answer. The healthy person would have to be depressed to make the sacrifice. It's his/her decision (or incision!) not yours or mine so your question is questionable!!!
Only the doner can answer.
-
What if you were as healthy as the healthy person...would you do it? :-?
-
no :(
and if i die you can't have mine either - my choice thanks :-X
-
no this is nothing to do with tax or carbon foot printing, nor are we talking about 'culling' part of the population...
its more the ethic of killing someone to benefit 5 lives
this person is mr/mrs/miss/ms average who lives a normal life
Why? why not cull??????
-
Dont fancy the thought of "inferior" non genuine parts in my body , thanks all the same :P
-
I will have any scroats, non smoking lungs thanks.... :y
-
He who asks the question should be equally as open to the knife as the healthy party...as in "what would you do?" As the healthy party i'd be saying "sacrifice yourself then, who gave you the right to choose?!!! ::) ;D :D
-
My politics are biased to achieving "the greatest good" in line with Bentham's utilitarianism, so you sacrifice one life to save five! ::) ::)
However, I would hate to have to make that decision if it mean't the death of that one person, when you have to consider the morality involved, along with the rights of liberty, freedom and justice for the individual under God given laws as Locke envisaged. 8-) 8-)
I am sure the circumstances of the situation, such as war, must greatly infuence any individuals ability to make such judgement.
However a decision of this type always makes me think of the infamous hot air ballon challenge:
A hot air ballon needs to lighten its load to avoid crashing into a mountain range below. There are five people, of the same physical weight, in the ballon and it is calculated that the weight of one, if removed from the ballon, would save the balloon from unavoidable disaster. The people have therefore to decide who should be removed from the basket by working out each others "worth" in society and deciding who can be sacrificed. :'( :'(
Apparently this challenge has been used in Special Forces Training and made as real as possible by the instructors, which is a most unpleasant thought! :o :o :o
-
He who asks the question should be equally as open to the knife as the healthy party...as in "what would you do?" As the healthy party i'd be saying "sacrifice yourself then, who gave you the right to choose?!!! ::) ;D :D
What have you been eating?????? ;D ;D ;D :y
-
I dont want to ruin your bit of fun BUT. If every person that didnt mind there organs being used after they have thrown off the mortal shackles carried a donar card there wouldnt be the current problem.
Gordon Brown lost his campagne for the optout.
Sorry to hijack your post but its dear to me.
Iain
-
A hot air ballon needs to lighten its load to avoid crashing into a mountain range below. There are five people, of the same physical weight, in the ballon and it is calculated that the weight of one, if removed from the ballon, would save the balloon from unavoidable disaster. The people have therefore to decide who should be removed from the basket by working out each others "worth" in society and deciding who can be sacrificed. :'( :'(
Apparently this challenge has been used in Special Forces Training and made as real as possible by the instructors, which is a most unpleasant thought! :o :o :o
Not really, "survival of the fittest"- while the other 4 are debating throw the nearest person out. 8-)
-
Gordon Brown lost his campagne for the optout.
The public are against it for one simple reason, "mission creep" - which has affected every other Guv policy
How long before someone has a quota to meet for organ transplants?
I was going to say doctor, but chances are it would be a "consultant" making the decision.
-
A hot air ballon needs to lighten its load to avoid crashing into a mountain range below. There are five people, of the same physical weight, in the ballon and it is calculated that the weight of one, if removed from the ballon, would save the balloon from unavoidable disaster. The people have therefore to decide who should be removed from the basket by working out each others "worth" in society and deciding who can be sacrificed. :'( :'(
Apparently this challenge has been used in Special Forces Training and made as real as possible by the instructors, which is a most unpleasant thought! :o :o :o
Not really "survival of the fittest"- while the other 4 are debating throw the nearest person out. 8-)
Not an allowed option... :) this "test" has been around a long time, and usually comes with the non-allowed options of 1) precipitate action, 2) Self sacrifice.
The whole purpose is to see how people react/discuss an extreme case that challenges the norm. Another input is often to try to "force" someone (often a quiet or weak character) to make a decision .. I've seen several folks crack up when placed in that position. Needless to say, they usually fail the test.
-
I dont want to ruin your bit of fun BUT. If every person that didnt mind there organs being used after they have thrown off the mortal shackles carried a donar card there wouldnt be the current problem.
Gordon Brown lost his campagne for the optout.
Sorry to hijack your post but its dear to me.
Iain
I carry a card & have for years. No good to me when i've gone :y
If i can help someone that deserves help then i will :)
-
Hmmm I would say the healthy person should not sacrifice himself for the sake of the others. The 5 are obviously not very healthy anyway and chances are the one healthy will lead a long and happy productive life. the other 5 maybe will be a drain on resources ?
I do no a person who has had a transplant (work with him every day) now he is happy hard working person but does tend to take slightly more time off work than the average, he does make up for it in other ways though. However his life expectancy is shortened and he has to take drugs for the rest of his life. Now if we want to be cavalier about it, it may be his shortened life expectancy will prevent him drawing a pension and suffering from old age related problems so in the long run he may cost the country less.
On the face of it the healthy person should not sacrifice himself, but for the good of the countries finances the 5 recipients will probably be the better option.
A dilemma indeed, and no doubt I have failed the test.
Mike
-
you have a healthy person, potentially they could save the lives of 5 people who required various organ transplants.
Heart
Kidney x2
Liver
Lungs
so heres the dilemma.......
do you sacrifice one person to save 5
please note this is just a hypothetical....
if i had to make the choice then yes i would sacrifice the 1 to save 5.
-
Even hypothetically it's a hard question to answer. The healthy person would have to be depressed to make the sacrifice. It's his/her decision (or incision!) not yours or mine so your question is questionable!!!
Only the doner can answer.
totally agreed..
-
What about the option of killing one of the 5 who needed say the heart....and using his lungs, kidneys and liver (the heart obviously being caput)......he was half dead any way.
-
That seems a more practical solution Mark, although it comes with the same moral question - which one?
-
:-X
-
That seems a more practical solution Mark, although it comes with the same moral question - which one?
Ah, well thats a bit easier....no good going for people with kidney trouble....as you ahev two kidneys and you want to benefit the majority.
The hard part is choosing liver, lungs or heart....and that has to be based on the particular condition....i.e. if the person with heart issues was a smoker then the lungs may well be buggered anyway.
Sorry, typical (real) engineers approach......they say engineers make great doctors (thansk to thier superior diag skills) but sadly, they also say it as it is which would not go down to well!
-
wouldnt be worth it anyway, would probably pick up mrsa while in hosp and die ;D ;D
-
wouldnt be worth it anyway, would probably pick up mrsa while in hosp and die ;D ;D
would also be money wasted by the nhs for nothing and compensation payouts for all the family for contracting mrsa and dying :)
-
Is murder not a crime in this context? :o
Surely the saving of 5 lives does not justify the ending of another! :-?
-
OK -- the donor would have to be in a position to volunteer to be culled ... not likely to happen.
And what guarantee have you that the other 5 would survive the transplants anyway --- the key is the word "Potential" --- in reality you could end up losing all 6!
You have one alive -- you might have 5 ... "bird in the hand vs. 2 in the bush" :-?
-
OK -- the donor would have to be in a position to volunteer to be culled ... not likely to happen.
And what guarantee have you that the other 5 would survive the transplants anyway --- the key is the word "Potential" --- in reality you could end up losing all 6!
You have one alive -- you might have 5 ... "bird in the hand vs. 2 in the bush" :-?
big pay day for the undertaker :)
-
OK -- the donor would have to be in a position to volunteer to be culled ... not likely to happen.
And what guarantee have you that the other 5 would survive the transplants anyway --- the key is the word "Potential" --- in reality you could end up losing all 6!
You have one alive -- you might have 5 ... "bird in the hand vs. 2 in the bush" :-?
big pay day for the undertaker :)
Always look on the bright side :)
-
That seems a more practical solution Mark, although it comes with the same moral question - which one?
Ah, well thats a bit easier....no good going for people with kidney trouble....as you ahev two kidneys and you want to benefit the majority.
The hard part is choosing liver, lungs or heart....and that has to be based on the particular condition....i.e. if the person with heart issues was a smoker then the lungs may well be buggered anyway.
Sorry, typical (real) engineers approach......they say engineers make great doctors (thansk to thier superior diag skills) but sadly, they also say it as it is which would not go down to well!
yep..but more practical..
-
some interesting views.....
as another hypothetical...
you and a group of 5 very good lifelong friends are held hostage, you have been appointed the leader of the group by the hostage takers.
they give you a dilemma.......
To prove a point then need to kill one person, YOU have to decide who....
if you are unable to decide the entire group will be killed.
-
some interesting views.....
as another hypothetical...
you and a group of 5 very good lifelong friends are held hostage, you have been appointed the leader of the group by the hostage takers.
they give you a dilemma.......
To prove a point then need to kill one person, YOU have to decide who....
if you are unable to decide the entire group will be killed.
you stayed in front of pc too much go drive your car ;D :y
-
Good point Cem ... but ....
I guess it would boil down to who had the least to live for :-[ So if you are single with no kids -- bye bye :o In the absence of a volunteer of course !
-
Good point Cem ... but ....
I guess it would boil down to who had the least to live for :-[ So if you are single with no kids -- bye bye :o In the absence of a volunteer of course !
my choice would be the person i didnt like. simple as that ;)
-
I think i would draw straws for that one.
-
In that situation the decision on who should be spared would have to be based on the age, the number of dependants, and the importance to society of the individuals, and the one 'scoring' the least would be the one to be sacrificed for the "greater good". :( :( :( :(
-
In that situation the decision on who should be spared would have to be based on the age, the number of dependants, and the importance to society of the individuals, and the one 'scoring' the least would be the one to be sacrificed for the "greater good". :( :( :( :(
That's me gone then :o
-
In that situation the decision on who should be spared would have to be based on the age, the number of dependants, and the importance to society of the individuals, and the one 'scoring' the least would be the one to be sacrificed for the "greater good". :( :( :( :(
That's me gone then :o
Do not worry HC, I would definately be the first to be chosen for sacrifice!! ::) ::) ::) ;)
-
some interesting views.....
as another hypothetical...
you and a group of 5 very good lifelong friends are held hostage, you have been appointed the leader of the group by the hostage takers.
they give you a dilemma.......
To prove a point then need to kill one person, YOU have to decide who....
if you are unable to decide the entire group will be killed.
The honourable course of action for the person chosen to make the decision would be self sacrifice.
-
Another engineer's view... What about the prisons? Surely there are people in there who have been "written off" by society and are waiting to be "broken for spares"?
Kevin
-
some interesting views.....
as another hypothetical...
you and a group of 5 very good lifelong friends are held hostage, you have been appointed the leader of the group by the hostage takers.
they give you a dilemma.......
To prove a point then need to kill one person, YOU have to decide who....
if you are unable to decide the entire group will be killed.
Easy the hostage taker :y