Doctor Hypothetical (reject, blood, choice)

[Victor]

You are a doctor who specializes in transplants. You currently have in your hospital five patients who will die within a week unless they find donors, in which case they will live normal lives. Two patients need kidney transplants, two patients need lung transplants, and one patient needs a heart transplant. As you are contemplating this situation, a patient enters for his yearly physical. You examine him and find him to be in excellent health. You also note that he has two healthy kidneys, two healthy lungs, and a healthy heart, as well as the fact that his blood type and tissue type match that of your other patients perfectly. (Assume that you have a 100% transplant success rate and that you know to a medical certainty that there will be no complications such as organ rejection. Also assume that there is no chance of finding other donors.) Do you start chopping to save five lives at the expense of one? If not, how does this differ from the trolley hypothetical?

~Victor

[Feathers in Hair]

And the guy's in perfectly good health? Why would a person even consider doing in someone for this reason?

And the reason it differs from the trolley hypothetical is because, in that one at least one person has to die of unnatural causes. In this one, you'd have the choice of potentially forcing someone to die of them.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by FeathersinHair

And the guy's in perfectly good health?.

Yes.

Originally Posted by FeathersinHair

Why would a person even consider doing in someone for this reason?

I dont know. Once we get someone to answer in such a way we can ask.


~Victor

[The Black Whirlwind]

No. it would be murder.

[Feathers in Hair]

Hehee, good point! (An interesting juxtoposition of situations, by the way!)

[Jaymes]

If he consented I would. If not, I'd wait it out.

This is why I'm not a doctor.

[Crystal Red]

Depends if the 5 are decent better people than the one, I would have no problem doing it but I doubt it'd be worth the effort. Rather have one perfect person than five people who probably don't deserve the organs, if you can't look after your own I think it's too much to ask to take someone else's life to keep your own.

[Quoth The Raven]

Originally Posted by Crystal Red

Depends if the 5 are decent better people than the one, I would have no problem doing it but I doubt it'd be worth the effort. Rather have one perfect person than five people who probably don't deserve the organs, if you can't look after your own I think it's too much to ask to take someone else's life to keep your own.

So if you assume that one has an hereditary valve defect, two have Cystic Fibrosis, one has Alports Syndrome (hereditary) and one has Neurogenic Bladder (impaired nerve function) leading to Chronic Renal Failure, does that make a difference?
It's a big call to say that a person needing a transplant has obviously abused the organ they need transplanted. Who is the most deserving of life is entirely subjective.
In the end, the answer comes down to whether you take the Hippocratic Oath seriously or not.
' I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby.'

[Apotheosis]

No, why are these 5 lives more important than the one?

Answer- They're not, I would give the healthy patient the option, fully expecting a refusal, and then do my best to find other donors through more official methods.