Asimov Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 http://www.christianforums.com/t2864621-is-it-right-for-1-to-die-so-that-7-may-live.html Avatar on cf.com posed an interesting question, albeit one with an obvious answer: "Interested in what people of different theologies/philosophies have to say about this. Situation: 7 people are terminally ill and on organ donor waiting lists. 1 person can save all of their lives by having their organs harvested. Kidneys, lungs, heart, liver. Should the one person be sacrificed to save the seven? Why or why not? Does the 'one person's' consent or lack of consent change your answer?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 My answer is "No, it is not right for the one to be sacrificed, and it doesn't matter how many people could be saved by such an action." Sacrifice sometimes does occur, but never is it "right." The one person's consent (or lack thereof) does not change my answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 YES! YES! YES! YES! This is the Christian thing to do!!! Only those who truly wish to know (and meet) Jesus Christ should practice this!! This is what the bible REALLY says!!! Offer your own death as a sacrifice so that others may live!!! Notify the churches!!! I think we have a solut... winner here!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 1, 2006 Author Share Posted April 1, 2006 My answer is "No, it is not right for the one to be sacrificed, and it doesn't matter how many people could be saved by such an action." Sacrifice sometimes does occur, but never is it "right." The one person's consent (or lack thereof) does not change my answer. Why do you think that it is not right for someone to willingly sacrifice themselves in order to save 7 people? Are you saying that they shouldn't have a choice in the matter and must survive no matter what? How is that any different from forcing them to sacrifice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poonis Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Why is it axiomatic to think it necessary the seven should live? No one questions this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greasemonkey Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 ugh... interesting moral argument. Similar to the "people on the raft" thing... 7 terminally ill, one healthy guy. We need a few more specifics. If 7 patients are terminally ill and 1 guy has his organ donor card filled out & gets killed in a car wreck, then sure! If the 1 patient wants to willingly die to save the other 7, then hell no. The one guy isn't being altruistic, he's being suicidal! We could start a whole new thread purely about the motivations of any person willing to do this sort of thing... Of course, if the suicidal guy was an organ donor and offed himself, then I don't see any moral qualms about taking his organs exactly the same as the car accident victim (depending of course on the manner of death). ...this all sounds entirely too close to a stem-cell debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qadeshet Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 The spirit of self sacrifice is what makes us uniquely human. The 300 Spartans under Leonidas at Thermopylae knew they were going to die. How many of us will still be remembered in 2500 years? Would you sacrifice yourself to save the lives of your children? Situation: 7 people are terminally ill and on organ donor waiting lists. 1 person can save all of their lives by having their organs harvested. Kidneys, lungs, heart, liver. Should the one person be sacrificed to save the seven? Why or why not? Does the 'one person's' consent or lack of consent change your answer?" This would be illegal in the USA. Harvesting organs from the living is obviously wrong. But suppose 7 children were in a burning house? Would you be willing to sacrifice yourself to save them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Pssshh. Why don't the Christians just admit they want to debate Star Trek and be done! "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." and all that. This is nothing more than a self or societal justified sacrificing. After all, who inevitably winds up being the "few"? Obviously the "minority" verses the "majority". And how do we tell the minority from the majority? Differences the majority decides matters. The Holocaust is a most extreme mirror that depicts EXACTLY this type of thinking....the majority (full blooded right thinking germans) verses the minority (jews). By accepting the altruistic sounding "needs of the many outweighing...." you could well be justifying a great pain. Try googling that phrase.....aside from Star Trek references......you'll find people using that phrase to justify just about anything. It's one of those sayings that "sounds" right......but isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 1, 2006 Author Share Posted April 1, 2006 My personal thoughts are that forcing another to sacrifice themselves in order to save 7 people is murder. I'm not sure about someone who sacrifices themselves...I don't see anything wrong with suicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 I think the true question is is it wrong for a person to look into the eyes of the children of those 7 and say no, I will not kill myself so that they may live? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 2, 2006 Author Share Posted April 2, 2006 I think the true question is is it wrong for a person to look into the eyes of the children of those 7 and say no, I will not kill myself so that they may live? No, it's not wrong. They have to learn one way or another about death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 I agree with Asimov. It's pretty open and shut to me - if the 1 person doesn't want to die, forcing that person's death in order to harvest organs would be an act of murder. If that person willingly chose to sacrifice him or herself, then that's another matter. Suicide is not always an evil thing. To me, the question is one of personal liberty and how sacred a concept it should be. It reminds me of the argument for the relativity of good and evil, which I think I read in the Satanic Bible. Basically, if a wolf kills a sheep for its food, it's good for the wolf and bad for the sheep. However, if the sheep hides where the wolf cannot get to it and the wolf dies of starvation, it's good for the sheep and bad for the wolf. In this case, good and evil are not objective concepts. In the subject of this thread, it's much the same to me - it's good for whomever lives and bad for whomever dies, and good and evil shall exist no matter which path is chosen, so again, it's a matter of the rights of the individual, not necessarily of good and evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 2, 2006 Author Share Posted April 2, 2006 The concepts of morality only exist in a society, as they are the product of a society. Then we have two extremes: Altruists, and the Criminals. On the one hand, the Altruists sacrifice everything of themselves for the good of the many, putting themselves into slavery because they think it's their duty to help others all the time. The Criminals cannot function in a society and follow it's basic moral tenets, where they take from people all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Situation: 7 people are terminally ill and on organ donor waiting lists. 1 person can save all of their lives by having their organs harvested. Kidneys, lungs, heart, liver. Should the one person be sacrificed to save the seven? Why or why not? Does the 'one person's' consent or lack of consent change your answer?"[/b] One of those heavy questions indeed... My take: If said person agrees to donating her organs and dies in time, for whatever reason, fine with me. As for "speeding up that process"... no. I'm definitely for shooting a loonie who's about to murder a handful of innocents before he can harm them, but that potential organ donor would have to be directly involved in the misery of the seven people in need to justify the speeding up. In coldly logical terms, of course it would be advantageous to finish off the single person and help the seven with her organs. But then, if such a thing would be legal you might as well introduce complete, ho-holds-barred anarchy. Everyone would have to fear being fragged any second for whatever reason. Let alone that maybe another option will become available before it's too late for the seven in need... say, someone who also has the organs needed gets killed in an accident. By the way, I wouldn't object to removing the need of a written permit "you may use my organs after my death". A dead body is just a useless shell. What made up the human before is now gone, whether you attribute humanity to a living brain or any kind of immortal soul doesn't matter. I don't want to actively enforce such a thing either, for I know that most people will find that thought horrible... but if a law to that extent should be passed some day, I'd say "okay". (Can you guess that I signed my agreement to be an organ donor after my death years ago? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 http://www.christianforums.com/t2864621-is-it-right-for-1-to-die-so-that-7-may-live.html Avatar on cf.com posed an interesting question, albeit one with an obvious answer: "Interested in what people of different theologies/philosophies have to say about this. Situation: 7 people are terminally ill and on organ donor waiting lists. 1 person can save all of their lives by having their organs harvested. Kidneys, lungs, heart, liver. Should the one person be sacrificed to save the seven? Why or why not? Does the 'one person's' consent or lack of consent change your answer?" Am I the donor or one of the recipients? If yes, that changes the answer which is otherwise, why the fuck should I care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 The one person's consent (or lack thereof) does not change my answer. Why do you think that it is not right for someone to willingly sacrifice themselves in order to save 7 people? Are you saying that they shouldn't have a choice in the matter and must survive no matter what? How is that any different from forcing them to sacrifice?] I can't explain exactly why I think a willing sacrifice is also wrong. It's more of a gut-level aversion to sacrificing for others, combined with the question "Is this person genuinely willing, or is society guilt-tripping him into altruism?" On the logical side, the best that I can come up with is that it's essentially gambling with lives. There's a chance that the surgeries will all fail, and instead of one death there will be eight. Admittedly that's statistically improbable -- One or more lives would probably be saved by the harvesting of the organs. Bottom line: The overall effect of the sacrifice may indeed be good, but the loss of the one life is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 2, 2006 Author Share Posted April 2, 2006 The one person's consent (or lack thereof) does not change my answer. Why do you think that it is not right for someone to willingly sacrifice themselves in order to save 7 people? Are you saying that they shouldn't have a choice in the matter and must survive no matter what? How is that any different from forcing them to sacrifice?] I can't explain exactly why I think a willing sacrifice is also wrong. It's more of a gut-level aversion to sacrificing for others, combined with the question "Is this person genuinely willing, or is society guilt-tripping him into altruism?" On the logical side, the best that I can come up with is that it's essentially gambling with lives. There's a chance that the surgeries will all fail, and instead of one death there will be eight. Admittedly that's statistically improbable -- One or more lives would probably be saved by the harvesting of the organs. Bottom line: The overall effect of the sacrifice may indeed be good, but the loss of the one life is bad. So a firefighter shouldn't enter a burning building....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 So a firefighter shouldn't enter a burning building....?That's a bit different. The firefighter has a reasonable expectation of getting out alive. The person in this organ-harvesting scenario has no chance at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 2, 2006 Author Share Posted April 2, 2006 So a firefighter shouldn't enter a burning building....?That's a bit different. The firefighter has a reasonable expectation of getting out alive. The person in this organ-harvesting scenario has no chance at all. That's not the point...both the firefighter and the person are willingly sacrificing themselves to save others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Why is it axiomatic to think it necessary the seven should live? No one questions this. Interesting point. It is our nature, ie genetice (or epigenetic?), to keep the species going. The idea of the many over the few seems to be our nature. I too agree with Asimov. Since when is it bad to be altruistic? It is that person's life, why can't they decide what they want to do with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greasemonkey Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Interesting point. It is our nature, ie genetice (or epigenetic?), to keep the species going. The idea of the many over the few seems to be our nature. I too agree with Asimov. Since when is it bad to be altruistic? It is that person's life, why can't they decide what they want to do with it? I have a hard time with this, because I think all "altruism" stems from basic self-interest. If you looked closely at the person willing to die to save seven others, he would probably be suicidal. I agree it's his life, and if he off's himself, then by all means, use the organs. I just don't like the idea of what the society would be like if it started encouraging suicide. Having been suicidal at one time in my life, I'm pretty freaking happy I didn't do it. Firefighters aren't literally being altruistic, they are doing their job. The percentage of firefighters who die after entering burning buildings is pretty small; this is what they do for a living and they have heavy training. If they had a 99% fatality rate, I doubt there would be very many signing up for the job. I'm not downplaying the heroism of the guys, but I think I can say that is one of the reasons many go into it in the first place. A guy who dies fighting an enemy to give his family time to escape is just logic in motion. Do nothing = all die. Do something = your line has a chance of survival. I don't see it as altruistic as much as I do just being logical. I'd probably be the first guy to jump in a river to save a drowning person, but it has more to do with the fact I couldn't live with myself knowing I had just watched and didn't do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 So a firefighter shouldn't enter a burning building....?That's a bit different. The firefighter has a reasonable expectation of getting out alive. The person in this organ-harvesting scenario has no chance at all. That's not the point...both the firefighter and the person are willingly sacrificing themselves to save others. The firefighter is not sacrificing their life, they are risking their life. They have extensive training and knowledge concerning burning buildings which gives them a very high probability of getting out of that burning building alive. It's not like they are just a person off the street running into a burning building. Medical ethics would never allow a person to sacrifice themselves for seven other people, even if the person who was doing the sacrificing was terminal to begin with. I know we are being hypothetical here, but it's not something that would ever occur in reality. (I didn't see greasemonkey's post until after I posted this.) Taph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Medical ethics would never allow a person to sacrifice themselves for seven other people, even if the person who was doing the sacrificing was terminal to begin with. I know we are being hypothetical here, but it's not something that would ever occur in reality. Good point, Taphie - medical ethics and indeed the Hippocratic Oath would come into force here. Most doctors would not permit one human to just lay down his or her life; after all, in order to do so, said doctor would have to first end the donor's life before organ removal could happen. That contradicts the Oath, and presents an interesting monkey wrench thrown into the situation. Certainly, if this person were donating willingly and under no form of compulsion or guilt-tripping whatsoever, then the donor's sacrifice can't be thought of as wrong. But, what of the doctor's oath to do no harm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 I would say it's wrong if that person did not volunteer. Nobody should ever be forced into a situation like that. It's murder if they are. But, what of the doctor's oath to do no harm? Good question, and I do think it would be wrong for them to violate that oath. But either way, they're doing harm. If they do nothing, they're still doing harm because the sick people are going to die anyway. If they kill the volunteer, they're doing harm. They're going to end up violating the oath no matter what they do, so it's a no-win scenario. I think the doctor should try to look for an answer outside the box. See if there's any other donated organs anywhere in the world that might work (from someone who's already dead), and at least they could save one or two people. Maybe they could try to clone the organs from stem cells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Doctors who harvest organs from brain dead donors do have a difficult time with this. The donor is technically alive and they have to kill their patient in order to harvest the organs. Cutting out a living heart from a living person is not an easy thing to do (the heart is the most animated organ, drum your fingers on your desk, that's how fast the thing moves) even though they understand intellectually that the person is technically not alive. On a side note, doctors have been known to drop the heart after removal because it still moves on it's own for a few minutes after removal. Taph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts