Would you save this dying patient?

by Dave The Canuck Posted 2012/05/20 21:00:07

Related Topics: Transplant, Medicine, Doctor, Cure, Unfortunately, Illness, Need, Live

20 votes
Read all 30 opinions
View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Save patient six.	16 votes	80%
	Explain, and ask him if he'd be willing to give up his life for the five others.	2 votes	10%
	Wait for him to die and then harvest his organs.	0 votes	0%
	Other	2 votes	10%

You are a very skilled doctor with five dying patients, each of whom needs a different organ in order to live. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of the transplants. It just so happens that you have a sixth dying patient, suffering from a fatal illness, who will die sooner than the other five if not treated. If this sixth patient dies, you will be able to use his organs to save the five other patients. However, you have a medicine you can give to this sixth patient that will cure his illness and he won't die. What would you do?

Add a comment above

Joe61 2012/05/20 21:16:41 (edited)

Save patient six.

+3
I can't see the ethics in letting a patient die, who can be cured.....simply to use him as a doner cadaver to save other patients. That is murder!
>> See Replies

More polls by Dave The Canuck

Muskoka 2012/05/21 03:01:22

Save patient six.

The six patient is in no way responsible for saving the others no matter what they are dying of or how many of them are dying. Every patient is to be treated as an individual and their life is as important as every other.

reply
tweet_tweet 2012/05/21 02:03:02

Save patient six.

+2
A doctor has a duty to save patient six if there is a medication that would guarantee his recovery. There's no telling that the other five patients' bodies would even accept patient six's organs, especially if here were severely ill and didn't receive treatment. Moreover, patient six has no moral obligation to sacrifice his life to save five other people.

reply
Azrael-In GOD we trust 2012/05/20 23:44:57

Save patient six.

+2
Any moral doctor would do this.

reply
JohnT 2012/05/20 22:34:20

Save patient six.

+2
In medicine the Hippocratic oath states Do No Harm I must save the sixth patient with the medicine I have.

reply
Mark Mercer 2012/05/20 22:24:24

Other

+2
use the 'Magic wand' that made me a Doctor, to save all six.

reply
DemonxO... to Mark Me... 2012/05/21 05:52:44

+1
Have all my upvotes.

reply
Dave The Canuck 2012/05/20 22:10:44

Save patient six.

+1
My duty is to give help if it is possible. While more people would be saved if I neglected patient six, they'd be saved BECAUSE I let a patient die, whereas the deaths of the five are not needed to save patient six. Sacrificing one patient to save five others wouldn't even be a utilitarian option in the long run, because anyone in need of medical care wouldn't feel they could trust their lives to doctors. I kind of feel like asking patient six if he'd be willing to sacrifice himself, but that would be a huge burden to suddenly impose on a sick patient.

reply
rand 2012/05/20 22:00:48

Other

+1
It would be unfair to pressure the patient with the weight of the decision you've posed...unless his age was advanced and/or his health otherwise compromised. In that case, I, as a person of 60+ years, would like to be offered the option.

reply
kent 2012/05/20 21:32:38

Save patient six.

+2
You have the cure at hand for patient six...you do not have the cure at hand for the other five, and in order to get it you would have to withhold treatment for #6. If you make a consious decision to let #6 die for the "expedience" of saving the others you have placed yourself as a judge determining who has enough value to live. Extrapolating from that is the thin edge of the wedge to making decisions of who else should die in order to save those you deem more worthy.

reply
die Küss der Tod 2012/05/20 21:26:53

Save patient six.

+1
As much as it would hurt to let the other 5 patients die, it is a doctor's duty to save lives and if they know that they can save the life of a person (even if their death might save more lives), they have to save that person. To not do so would be murder. Even though the other patients might die, if nothing can be done, nothing can be done...as sad as that sounds.

reply
Joe61 2012/05/20 21:16:41 (edited)

Save patient six.

+3
I can't see the ethics in letting a patient die, who can be cured.....simply to use him as a doner cadaver to save other patients. That is murder!

reply
sockpuppet 2012/05/20 21:16:19

Save patient six.

Every other course of action leads to criminal charges and civil suits.

reply
FunnyLittleNightmare 2012/05/20 21:02:47

Explain, and ask him if he'd be willing to give up his life for the five others.

+1
That's the moral thing to do. Then my problem is solved whatever he chooses.

reply
sockpuppet to FunnyLi... 2012/05/20 21:20:03

+1
That would be the 21st Century way to go with it, alright... but we haven't even embraced mercy killing over here, yet. Our ethics are mostly based on the likelihood of a lawsuit. :O(

reply
FunnyLi... to sockpuppet 2012/05/20 22:11:25 (edited)

+2
Couldn't be more true. Here in the UK a woman was threatened with prison if she took her terminally ill husband to Switzerland to be Euthanised. It's pathetic. I don't know how anyone could be against it.

reply
sockpuppet to FunnyLi... 2012/05/20 23:08:04

+1
You're still struggling with this, too? This just needs to be fixed. The one activist we had here was a pathologist named Jack Kervorkian, and they called him "Dr. Death" and locked him up. Surprised he wasn't burned at the stake.

Apparently, we know enough to euthanize our pets when they need it--- how we've failed to make the leap, I have no idea.

reply
tweet_t... to sockpuppet 2012/05/21 02:10:43 (edited)

+2
Kevorkian has a worse reputation than he deserved. I agree.

reply
sockpuppet to tweet_t... 2012/05/21 02:52:52

+2
He was trying to legislate something we've needed desperately for centuries. No idea why we're stuck with this at this late date.

reply
tweet_t... to sockpuppet 2012/05/21 02:09:04

+1
The five dying patients require someone to die who could easily be cured. Patient six has a cure available, and the five patients are not entitled to anyone's organs. No on should ask someone with guaranteed survival to give up his life. If he found out on his own and wanted to do it, then I could understand respecting his decision legally, but I don't think anyone should ask in the first place.

reply
sockpuppet to tweet_t... 2012/05/21 02:51:26

+1
I assumed that when you said he wouldn't die (if given medicine), he'd die anyway... only not as soon as the other five. Yet another reason I should never be given such power. :O)

reply
tweet_t... to sockpuppet 2012/05/21 04:56:16

+1
It's ambiguous whether or not the medicine would cure the patient or prolong life. Even it could only accomplish the latter, I'm still for treating patient six. Given that scenario, he may continually receive treatment to prolong his life, and may live to see advancements in medicine that would fully treat his illness.

reply
sockpuppet to tweet_t... 2012/05/21 11:12:52

+1
Yeah, I'd go with patient 6 also. I believe his organs would have been parceled out according to an existing waiting list, anyway-- it's not up to the doc who receives these things. :O)

reply
tweet_t... to FunnyLi... 2012/05/21 02:04:28

+1
Why should he give up his to save others, when his cure is readily available?

reply
FunnyLi... to tweet_t... 2012/05/21 11:53:05

He may want to. If he doesn't want to he can just say no. As the doctor I wouldn't judge.

reply
Muskoka to FunnyLi... 2012/05/21 03:04:41

+1
There is nothing moral about that at all. No one should be pressured into being a donor to save the lives of others and in turn being forced to die as the consequence of that action. There is nothing more heinous that that kind of request.

reply
FunnyLi... to Muskoka 2012/05/21 11:51:30

He doesn't need to pressured into it. In any case, if he found out after that he could have saved those people by dying how guilty would he feel? I would and I'd certainly want the doctor to ask me. I guess its down to each person at the end of the day.

reply
Muskoka to FunnyLi... 2012/05/21 17:25:41

Simply talking to him is pressure and an insult and disrespectful to him. It show that you do not believe that his life is as valuable as the others are.

It is one of the most asinine and outrageous and dehumanizing ideas that I have ever heard of. I cannot even begin to speak to the level of reprehensible behavior that it generates for me.

reply
FunnyLi... to Muskoka 2012/05/21 19:31:51

Someone swallowed a dictionary today... In any case it's a matter of opinion. I'd be pretty angry if I wasn't told personally.

reply
Muskoka to FunnyLi... 2012/05/21 20:18:31

Sad that you believe some lives are more important than others. I believe that there are things that people are better off not knowing at all.

reply
FunnyLi... to Muskoka 2012/05/21 20:39:44

I could twist that arguement the other way. So you think that one mans life is more important than four? Why don't you back off and think about what you're doing? You're doing exactly what you said you wouldn't do. If you think that pressuring me is going to change my mind think again. Let it be. I don't agree with you, you don't agree with me. Stop shoving you're arguement down my throat. I don't care.

reply