Should we kill healthy people for their organs?

[collegestudent22]

That's a stupid question because some people DO support euthanasia for humans.

How does that make it a stupid question? Clearly the question is not pointed at them, but at those that decided that it is OK to euthanize animals, but not humans. Just because one side of the argument goes "Hey, why is that true?" and the other side has to answer because they think that it is OK to euthanize pets, but not humans, does not make it "stupid".

[Terrene]

It is a stupid question because the way you phrased it implied you think it is an accepted fact that everyone thinks human euthanasia is wrong. It is also stupid because it came from your lips and you're an idiot.

[Deacon]

Well it is illegal in the US, with the possible exception of Washington, where I hear they may have passed a Kevorkian ballot measure to allow it. So it's not really all that stupid...especially considering that there are certainly a majority of people who can't stomach human euthanasia. Just because a lot of the stuff he says is frustrating doesn't mean it's ALL wrong.

[adciv]

Deacon, I think it depends on exactly what is done depends on if it is illegal. So called "Doctor assisted", which is really doctor performed, yes. Done by another human, yes. Giving someone what they need and then them doing it themselves, I'm not so sure of. Mind you, it depends on if we take euthanasia to mean assisted, alone or both.

[DoveArrow]

The whole situation is just so ridiculously silly and is made more so every time the questioner attempts to herd you toward his amazing "gotcha" conclusion you can easily see coming from a mile away, and nothing useful has been accomplished.

I don't think the questioner is trying to herd you towards a 'gotcha' conclusion. The purpose of questions like these is to get you to think critically about your own ethical code, and to question why your initial gut reaction to one situation is different from your initial, gut reaction to another, similar situation.

Fo me, I think my reactions are based on how variable the situation is, and how voluntary my choice is. In the first scenario, my choice is completely voluntary. The situation, on the other hand, is highly variable. For example, we don't know how long the patients will survive without an organ transplant, how likely it is that they will even survive an organ transplant, how long the patients will live even if they do survive an organ transplant, or what the likelihood is that tomorrow five organs will suddenly become available for all five patients. Given that kind of variability, I think it's morally unethical to kill a completely healthy person, in order to potentially save five people.

In the second scenario, assuming that the gunmen has the gun, and that he will keep his word and shoot only one person, the situation is much less variable. My choice, on the other hand, is much less voluntary. I have to choose to have the gunmen either kill one person out of six, or sacrifice all six. Sure, I have some other options available to me. I could, for example, try and tackle the gunmen and take his gun. However, assuming that I'm just too petrified to be that heroic, or that I just can't think of any other options, I think I would choose to have one of the people in the group killed in order to save the other five. I can't say that it's entirely morally ethical, because what if the kidnapper doesn't keep his word, or what if there is another solution that isn't readily apparent? The variability of the situation, and the restriction of the voluntary nature of my choices makes the morality of my choice ethically grey.

In the third scenario, the situation is hardly variable at all, but my choices are not very voluntary. I have to choose between killing one person or killing five. Those are my only two choices and the variability between those two choices is nil. In that case, I would have to say that the morally ethical choice is to kill the one person in order to save the five. That's my analysis.

[collegestudent22]

assuming that the gunmen has the gun, and that he will keep his word and shoot only one person, the situation is much less variable

However, assuming that I'm just too petrified to be that heroic, or that I just can't think of any other options, I think I would choose to have one of the people in the group killed in order to save the other five.

Two BIG assumptions there. Two assumptions, the first of which is just never going to happen. With someone unstable enough to kill an innocent person, you cannot trust them to keep their word. The third scenario is obvious, because they tell you someone HAS to die. In the other two situations, not only is that not necessarily true (except the heart and a few others, organs can be donated without death), but it is also an incredibly unlikely situation.

[DoveArrow]

[quote="collegestudent22Two BIG assumptions there. Two assumptions, the first of which is just never going to happen. With someone unstable enough to kill an innocent person, you cannot trust them to keep their word. The third scenario is obvious, because they tell you someone HAS to die. In the other two situations, not only is that not necessarily true (except the heart and a few others, organs can be donated without death), but it is also an incredibly unlikely situation.[/quote]

Well I realize that they're big assumptions. However, when you're trying to respond to a vague, hypothetical situation, big assumptions are all that you have to go on. And as far as the first assumption is concerned, I don't know if it is or isn't a big leap as I've never been faced with such a situation, and likely never will be. I'm also pretty certain that you've never met anyone unstable enough to kill an innocent person, so I doubt very seriously that you can claim to be an authority on the subject of how trustworthy the can be.

In any event, the point of my response was not to necessarily suggest how best to respond to each scenario, but to provide a theory that might explain why I would respond a given way to each of these three scenarios, and I think the variability of the situation and how voluntary my response is would dictate my reaction.

Oh and I would certainly welcome a 'gotcha' question that would throw my theory off.

[collegestudent22]

Oh and I would certainly welcome a 'gotcha' question that would throw my theory off.

Except the fact that you seem to have a problem recognizing the one that is in front of you, that would be fine. It IS a 'gotcha' question because the only reason the last two questions are there is to "herd" you to the conclusion that it is OK to kill one to save five in the first question, because you do in the second or last. The problem is that the first two require large, unrealistic assumptions. That is the reason it is a 'gotcha' question. In the first two questions, there are scenarios that would allow you to save all six at the same time. Hell, in the last question, it assumes that you have no ability to stop the train or derail it. (you can switch its rail, but not drive it off, which is impossible, because switching it halfway WOULD derail the train. Whether that would save them depends on how far they are from the switch and how fast the train is going, how it actually comes off the rail, etc.) There is no reason that hypothetical questions require one to make assumptions beyond the idea that is presented. The second question also assumes that you are not armed. If you were it would be easy to pick the person on the opposite side of the terrorist and shoot him before he can shoot anyone else. Also, why would you assume that someone unstable enough to kill would be trustworthy, especially if you don't know them. Trust is something you build up with people. There is no way you would trust some random guy off the street who is threatening someone's life. Murder would indicate a lack of character. Character is what allows you to trust someone. Therefore, there can be no trust, even if he would keep his word, you would still doubt it.

[DoveArrow]

Well if all you want to do is discuss how stupid it is to discuss moral dilemmas, then I think we should just end the discussion now, because while you may think the discussion of moral dilemmas is unproductive, I think discussing how stupid it is to discuss moral dilemmas is even moreso.

[collegestudent22]

Well if all you want to do is discuss how stupid it is to discuss moral dilemmas

I have no problem discussing moral dilemmas that DON'T require me to put artificial constraints on a situation. As the question stands, it is as useful as discussing trees falling in the woods with no one around.