i'm not using god as in the concept of the great divine being from above, but there was a reason for their deaths...and to interfere with what ever that reason was is not a good thing...it's like keeping people alive on life support..there's no chance of a conscious recovery...but to trap a soul where it doesn't belong...that to me is a greater cruelity than letting a person die.

it's not the doctor's fault that the five patients have a life threatening disease and so it isn't unethincal for the doctor to let nature takes it's course since there is no other suitable donors.

er isnt it the case that by that logic to help anyone at all is wrong since it goes against the wishes of the fates to have free will?

as far as the question goes..I consider action to be more of a moral concern than inaction...good is a willful act to me not a obligation, it is not evil to not do good just as it is not good to simply refuse to do evil. if the inaction is on a higher scale then the act of murder is still immoral but possably a necessary one.if could live with the guilt of that murder and destroy someones existance, make a family suffer for the sake of something 5 times worse happening then i would....but i dont think i could

why or why not the patients die is not the case here......what matters (philosophically) is whether or not ANY BLAME can be based upon the doctor's actions....which i think there can, for it is the doctor's decision that either 5 or 1 will live......avoid all ethical and moral principles (for the time being) and see this......which the doctor should choose I am not asking, but what other philosophical applications can be applied i am.....

philosophically speaking it is wrong to kill a person who has a "life worth living". Generally a person who is on the verge of death or in a serious amount of physical pain and discomfort does not have a life worth living. Thus the five patients in question do not have a life worth living and so it could be right for the doctor to save the life of the one patient rather than the five.

The choice is not the doctor's to make. The organs susatin the life of the patient, therefore it is his/her decision as to whether or not to sacrifice his/her life in order to save the other five people.

but cosmic, you say those in serious pain has a life not worth living, so say the 5 are merely waiting for organs, so they aren't in that much pain, and say the 1 was just in a horrible car wreck and lost an arm

That's a different bucket of fish altogether.

how so.....? the question still remains, 5 or 1?

Yes but if you say that 'People who have no respect for life do not deserve any respect in return' and do to the person what they did to the other then you are in the same place as them...you can't say 'Thou shalt not' and then do it yourself.

I have a related question:
If a child is born with a disease or condidtion which everyone knows is going to kill them when they're older is it wrong to let them die earlier?
the reaction now is to do all you can for the child to keep it alive, when if it had been born 100 years ago it would not have lived long. would it be wrong for the parents to decide that it was not worth the investment and struggle of keeping it alive?

the same question kind of applies to any technology that's developed to let parents find out fairly early whethere there was omething wrong with their child. would it be wrong to abort a pregnancy if you knew that the child was going to have some terrible illness?

I guess if it deteriorates their quality of life, then that is different from just dying earlier than the average life span.

If the person is living in constant agony, then it would be easier to accept euthenasia as an option. If the person just has a shorter life span, then why would you end their life earlier?


I think it would, because parents have a moral obligation to do the best for their children, regardless of everything else. Again, if dying is the best thing for the child (and justifying that one is NOT easy), then it is morally acceptable. However if it is purely because it will be a struggle and they don't want to go through it, then it's not acceptable.

I am guessing that this just boils down to the abortion argument - when is it all right to terminate the fetus during pregnancy? If we ascertain when the fetus becomes a equivalent to a child, then all the rules above apply (as in if the child will be miserable then maybe death would be the preferred option etc).

I guess the main question is whether death is justifiably the better option, and whether waiting for a cure, or for things to get better, or clinging to life is the best option to suit the circumstance.

Just my thoughts.

You're back again? I thought you thought that goths were all a bunch of wankers?
I quite enjoy talking on here, and I don't need any anti-goth comments from you this time.
And if I flirt with anyone that's my business.



But you're sweet, and I don't really mind.

A fine welcome I get

i agree with this statement. If a person, no matter what age is in constant agony and there is no hope for a cure than ending their suffering can be an option. Keeping the person alive would just be prolonging their misery which I think in itself is a cruel act. It is more humane to end a person's misery then to prolong it.