"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." HOMER SIMPSON


Is it always wrong to kill another human being or are there certain circumstances in which the killing of another is necessary?? say in the case of abortions, self defense, etc.
Read the following and see what you would do if faced with the particular situation??

You are a surgeon who specialises in organ transplants. You have five patients who will die unless they can find a suitable organ donour. By amazing coincidence they are all compatible so a single compatible donor will save them all. Among your other patients is someone who would make a suitable donor. The only problem is that she is still alive and only needs minor surgery for a condition which is not life-threatening. The surgery is not difficult but a small slip during the operation could cause death. This is the thought that strikes you when the patient is on the operating table. A tiny movement that no one will notive will give you the donor to save five lives. Should you do it?? :metalhead

Nope.

the world is crowded enough as it is......besides, if the doctor saves the woman maybe he'll be rewarded with some lovin....

Sometimes as with conjioned twins you have to save the healthiest and let 'nature' take it's course..killing someone who was not going to die to save those who were allready dieing is not ethical..the only ethical thing would be if the person gave up thier own life to save them, heroics like this however just don't happen. well not amongst the sane anyway.

But even if the person offered to give up their life to save the others could you kill them?

no they'd have to kill themselves...it's the same as voluntary euphanasia..if the person chooses to die they must be able to do it themselves or at least show without doubt that they would if they could.

the question as it stands is easy... SHOULD someone kill another to harvest their parts? no... WOULD someone? that is a question for the individual... some will say yes, most will say no (out of habit)... in any case it is moot

i agree with the rest...there's a reason why those five are to die, and that one needs only minor surgery...however i do feel there are reasons to kill a person...however this is not one of them!

No.

I couldn't take a life to save others. I always try to think of life as a circle of karma. Whatever you do will come back to you. I wouldn't want someone to do that to me...

I do have to agree with Jordyn though. There are times when murder is necessary...

if you think about it, other than for protection and survival of either yourself or a loved one, murder is also necessary simply for the sake of murder, or anything remotely corresponding to an evil definition

nope, although in the bigger picture, it may be "better" it is still wrong in my books.

killing an innocent person is unethical and so i think that it would be wrong for the doctor to kill the healthy patient. Murder could only be justified if the person being killed were a murderer or a rapist. People who have no respect for life do not deserve any respect in return.

It is never be the 'choice' of a mere doctor to determine who lives and dies. Only to perform as they have been trained. Hence, I would not even consider it.

kind of a cliche view about murder, not that it is in anyway wrong.......however, like masochist said, in the "bigger picture" (which should always be looked at), murder is justified by and for the sake of its existence........however, since murder as already been justified as such, should murder continue?

also, a little side question.......although the doctor may not "murder" his patient to "save" the other five, doesn't he thereby "murder" the other five by not "saving" them......i mean, so his hands did not actually do the killing, but his decision, and thus him, did.......

the doctor wouldn't be murdering the other five patients by not giving them the organs. It is not the doctor's fault that he could not find a donor who was already deceased. It would be murder if the doctor had other donors but didn't give the patients transplants through pure malice. Killing the patient who is not in a critical condition would be murder as the patient was killed by the doctor rather than by a life-threatening illness.

i see what you are saying, but you are wrong......only if there was not the one suitable pateint would the doctor be free, but because there is one someone will die from the cause and effect scenario, all which depends solely on the doctor...any way you try to look at it, by the doctor not taking the opportunity to save the other five he kills them......it is a no win situation, the doctor will kill someone......so with that said, i say the doctor should kill one rather than five if his conscience does affect him in any way concerning the one patient.....

What if the one life taken was destined to be another Ghandi? or the scientist who would discover a form of cell regeneration for all future transplant recipients. Or the sailor who saves a boat of 50 drowning school children.

Who is wrong then sixxx?

i fail to see your point........? it sounds to me like your are implying destiny......which is something i do not really believe in, but it matters not, for destiny is destiny no matter what happens......so if the scientist was to die, so be it, his destiny was fulfilled, his destiny was not to find some cure, but to die......

someone already said that a doctor's job is to do what he can with in his training...if he's done all he possibly,physically and ehtically can do to preserve the life of those patients, than his hands are clean...if they die it's an act of god...you don't blame the insurance agency if a car wrecks....

god? or god(ess)?