Moral dilemma on the 4th of July (hypothetical)...

[General Zod]

In the case of far more patients than is capable of actively being saved, it's a matter more of picking and choosing which patients to be saved rather than whether or not to get the guy to do the procedure. Given that I'd control Person X's ability to do the procedure, and he's clearly received offers of generous compensation before, I say bugger his sensibilities and do the procedure for the compensation.

That way, his basic financial needs are met, I get a nice take for pulling the strings, and people who deserve it's needs are met. To make sure that the rich dont' unfairly monopolize his abilities, a schedule would be arranged so that the poor and those with no money would be able to come in and have the procedure done. Say, certain days of the week.

But, again, since there's only so many people around, it's a matter of picking and choosing who gets saved and who can get told to sod off.

[Braedley]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
<snip>
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
<snip>

Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
<snip>

Seems to me that a patients right to life is being infringed if Person X does not perform the procedure, especially if said patient was the procedure performed.

[Braedley]

that should read "especially if said patient wants..."

[General Zod]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
<snip>
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
<snip>

Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
<snip>

Seems to me that a patients right to life is being infringed if Person X does not perform the procedure, especially if said patient was the procedure performed.

Plus, like the OP says, we don't know why person X won't perform the procedure. For all we know it could be something ridiculously trivial like being against his religious beliefs for whatever purpose.

[Darth Servo]

The right to liberty includes the right to do as you see fit. You are not responsible for the suffering of others if you did not cause their problems.

You remember that the next time YOU need a life saving operation but don't have insurance.

[Korvan]

Back when I was in university, posters were put up calling on people to apply for testing for compatibility for a possible bone marrow transplant to help out a kid with leukemia.

I applied and found out some interesting things. The procedure to extract the marrow is a fairly serious one as they have to crack open your thigh bone, but it is not life-threatening. A recovery period of 3-6 months is necessary.

Thoughout the entire process, the donor can backout at any time. It turns out that the recipient undergoes a a procedure a few days before the marrow is extracted. In this procedure, all of his marrow is destroyed by irradiation in anticpation of the transplant. Even at this point of no-return, the donor can still backout, though it means the almost certain death of the recipient. Of course you'd have to be the world's biggest asshole to backout at that point. But to the people who worked out the system and rules for transplant felt that the right of even an asshole to decide what happens with his own body outweighs the life of the patient.

[Mr. T]

I wouldn't care if saving a life temporarily inconveniences somebody, it's still saving a life.

[Darth Yoshi]

Compel him. If he's the only one who can do the procedure, then who is he to condemn others to death?

[Surlethe]

Cost-Benefit Analysis:

If X does not perform the procedure, X gains mental comfort. Person loses everything.

If X performs the procedure, X loses mental comfort. Person gains life.

Mental comfort is worth less than a person's life; unless you can demonstrate to me X will eventually commit suicide because of this procedure, compel him to perform it.

[mr friendly guy]

In the absence of more information, I would think the "default" thing to do is to compel the person (presumably a doctor). Now since the OP is sort of vague, I can think of some situations where a person possibly may be justified in refusing without contradicting the OP.

1) Lack of indemnity.

AFAIK its illegal to perform procedures without some sort of medical cover. Given that some procedures despite best practices can have complications which may lead to people suing you. The fact that you most likely have died if it wasn't attempted might not hold up in law, but I let someone more qualified than me discuss it.

That being said it should be easy enough to get covered, unless its some new procedure and the insurance companies don't know enough about it. A lack of indemnity is a reasonable explanation as to why someone doesn't want to do the procedure. And while we know from the OP that everything turns out alright, its unreasonable to expect the doctor to have the same level of prescient.

2. threatening patient

Someone posted an article last year about how Britian's health service the NHS banned a particular patient because he was continuously abusive. While I don't recall that particular patient having a life threatening disease, applying the same reasoning to a more extreme case, one could possibly argue that if the patient is abusive enough, even a life saving action may be refused.

I mean, why would you want to save someones life when they are threatening you physical harm? And yes there are morons who abusive to medical staff when staff are trying to help them. Don't know why they do it, but they exist.

[Alyeska]

The right to liberty includes the right to do as you see fit. You are not responsible for the suffering of others if you did not cause their problems.

You remember that the next time YOU need a life saving operation but don't have insurance.

If I can't afford the procedure its my own fucking problem. I am not going to hold someone else responsible and demand they fix my problem.

[Jadeite]

I just noticed, the thread title displayed in the forum says "5th of July", but on the top of the page it's "4th of July."

[Darth Wong]

The right to liberty includes the right to do as you see fit. You are not responsible for the suffering of others if you did not cause their problems.

You remember that the next time YOU need a life saving operation but don't have insurance.

If I can't afford the procedure its my own fucking problem. I am not going to hold someone else responsible and demand they fix my problem.

Hey, here's an idea: EXPLAIN WHY ALL COLLECTIVISM IS IMMORAL INSTEAD OF JUST REPEATING YOURSELF OVER AND OVER, FUCKTARD.

I already asked once before, you stupid little shit, and all you do is repeat your goddamned axioms. It's like talking to a fucking Amway salesman; you just go through your little spiel regardless of what people actually want to know.

You obviously do not believe in the concept of moral duty. You obviously do not believe in the concept of moral utilitarianism. You obviously do not believe that the value of human life exceeds the value you place on your particular value system, so what exactly is your value system, and what makes it so goddamned precious that you would sacrifice human life for it?

[Techno_Union]

I just noticed, the thread title displayed in the forum says "5th of July", but on the top of the page it's "4th of July."

There are two of these types of threads: a 5th of July and a 4th of July. Are you sure you weren't looking at the wrong one?

[Alyeska]

You remember that the next time YOU need a life saving operation but don't have insurance.

If I can't afford the procedure its my own fucking problem. I am not going to hold someone else responsible and demand they fix my problem.

Hey, here's an idea: EXPLAIN WHY ALL COLLECTIVISM IS IMMORAL INSTEAD OF JUST REPEATING YOURSELF OVER AND OVER, FUCKTARD.

I already asked once before, you stupid little shit, and all you do is repeat your goddamned axioms. It's like talking to a fucking Amway salesman; you just go through your little spiel regardless of what people actually want to know.

You obviously do not believe in the concept of moral duty. You obviously do not believe in the concept of moral utilitarianism. You obviously do not believe that the value of human life exceeds the value you place on your particular value system, so what exactly is your value system, and what makes it so goddamned precious that you would sacrifice human life for it?

I believe in personal freedoms. Moral collectivism is in opposition of personal freedom and liberty. And I don't sacrafice human lives for my value system. It is not my responsibility to fix other peoples problems. Just because they happen to be in a bad situation does not make it my fault and my lack of action does not make me responsible for their deaths. Now depending on the circumstances (like say my standing idly by and watching someone get mugged and killed when I had the ability to stop the situation), I sure look like an ass. One might have a moral duty, but that does not equate to the absolute necessity to do something.

The very concept of the dilema placed in the OP is whether or not personal freedoms are more or less important then societies betterment. One can extend it to further extremes. If you sacrafice 100 people to get a special biological agent out of them, you can cure 5 million cases of incurable cancer. Its more extreme then the OP example, but its the same basic questioning. Where do you draw the line? You would force a doctor to do what he does not wish to do to save lives. Will you sacrafice a hundred people (this assumes none of them volunteer) to save 5 million? My personal opinion is that no one should be directly forced to do something (or by extension directly aide) something they do not wish to do.

Then we get into the government side. Your government is likely to take your money and support things. That is part of the social contract you sign by being a citizen of that country. You gain the benefits of being a citizen of that country by fulfilling certain obligations. Paying taxes which just so happen to support things you don't necessarily want to support. You don't like it? Try and change it within the constraints of the law or leave that country and go somewhere else.

[wilfulton]

I would compel Person X to train other people in the procedure, so he would not have to. There would be others competent to perform it and he can simply do whatever.


However, in the grander scheme of things, do we save lives, or merely postpone the inevitable? (just a question)

[General Zod]

I would compel Person X to train other people in the procedure, so he would not have to. There would be others competent to perform it and he can simply do whatever.


However, in the grander scheme of things, do we save lives, or merely postpone the inevitable? (just a question)

That's a cop-out, as it assumes that the procedure is capable of being taught to others and doesn't rely on some special knowledge/ability/device/etc. that only person X can duplicate. Avoiding the original scenario is not the same as deciding what it says and giving reasons why.

[Darth Servo]

The right to liberty includes the right to do as you see fit. You are not responsible for the suffering of others if you did not cause their problems.

You remember that the next time YOU need a life saving operation but don't have insurance.

If I can't afford the procedure its my own fucking problem. I am not going to hold someone else responsible and demand they fix my problem.

In otherwords, death before ANY kind of government intervention what-so-ever?

[Darth Servo]

I believe in personal freedoms. Moral collectivism is in opposition of personal freedom and liberty.

If that were true, freedom and ethics would be totally exclusive concepts.

And I don't sacrafice human lives for my value system.

Except your own life, appatently.

It is not my responsibility to fix other peoples problems. Just because they happen to be in a bad situation does not make it my fault and my lack of action does not make me responsible for their deaths.

Then why are there "good Samaritan" laws?

Now depending on the circumstances (like say my standing idly by and watching someone get mugged and killed when I had the ability to stop the situation), I sure look like an ass. One might have a moral duty, but that does not equate to the absolute necessity to do something.

So you don't think its morally important to not be an asshole?

The very concept of the dilema placed in the OP is whether or not personal freedoms are more or less important then societies betterment.

Human LIFE should be near if not at the top of ANYONE's moral system.

One can extend it to further extremes. If you sacrafice 100 people to get a special biological agent out of them, you can cure 5 million cases of incurable cancer. Its more extreme then the OP example, but its the same basic questioning.

No, its not. In the OP, NO ONE is harmed in any way, unlike your ridiculous counter example.

Where do you draw the line?

When the person you're forcing is harmed, killed, mutilated, etc. Forcing them to do a particular job doesn't even BEGIN to qualify. BTW, your argument is a slippery slope fallacy.

You would force a doctor to do what he does not wish to do to save lives.

And you have not shown anything wrong with that.

Will you sacrafice a hundred people (this assumes none of them volunteer) to save 5 million?

Repeating a grotesquely different claim will not help you.

My personal opinion is that no one should be directly forced to do something (or by extension directly aide) something they do not wish to do.

Exactly. Its a personal opinion. NOT a logical argument.

Then we get into the government side. Your government is likely to take your money and support things. That is part of the social contract you sign by being a citizen of that country. You gain the benefits of being a citizen of that country by fulfilling certain obligations. Paying taxes which just so happen to support things you don't necessarily want to support. You don't like it? Try and change it within the constraints of the law or leave that country and go somewhere else.

What is there to not like about saving lives?

[Patrick Degan]

So... from what I read here, Alyeska, it seems you are quite comfortable with letting people die in the name of a philosophical abstraction.

[Braedley]

<snip>
It is not my responsibility to fix other peoples problems. Just because they happen to be in a bad situation does not make it my fault and my lack of action does not make me responsible for their deaths.
<snip>

Actually, if it is within your power to stop whats happening (whatever it may be), you are bound by law (in most countries) to take action as long as no further physical harm will come to you or to the victum . Otherwise, you are neglegent, and you can get sued because of it, and in some cases, criminally charged.

I, for example, have been trained in first aid and CPR, but my certification has expired. This means it is within my power to aid someone who has injured themselves. If that hypothetical person dies, their estate can sue me for neglegence. The lack of my certification just means that if I screw up and said person dies anyways, Saint John's Ambulance won't cover my ass in court.

[Braedley]

Edit: If that person dies because of my inaction...

[Alyeska]

So... from what I read here, Alyeska, it seems you are quite comfortable with letting people die in the name of a philosophical abstraction.

We all are. I don't hear about people donating most of their earnings to charities to save lives in depressing third world countries. Sure some of us might make a small donation from time to time, but thats it.

The ultimate issue is freedom/liberty vs life. There is a line to be drawn (at the invidual level) on where you will stand on the issue. I side more on the freedom/liberty then I do the life. Freedom to live has its risks. Now I myself would do my utmost to directly aide people that I see in need, but I wouldn't expect others to perform the same courtesy. They should be able to live their lives how they see fit.

Getting to the OP situation. I would not compel the Doctor to save those people. I would try and reason with him to save the people.

[Darth Wong]

So... from what I read here, Alyeska, it seems you are quite comfortable with letting people die in the name of a philosophical abstraction.

We all are. I don't hear about people donating most of their earnings to charities to save lives in depressing third world countries.

Nice black/white fallacy, asshole. You know perfectly well that the third-world countries have problems which run much deeper than a care package. This, however, is a human being right in front of you, who you will let die because of your value system. In short, you believe your value system is more valuable than human life itself.

The ultimate issue is freedom/liberty vs life.

Most normal people value things in the following order:

1) Life
2) Freedoms
3) Luxuries

Anyone claiming otherwise is full of shit. While we all want to have as much personal freedom as possible, very few of us would actually die to get more freedom (in fact, the idea of dying for freedom is meaningless since you have no freedom to do anything when you're dead, so "dying for freedom" can only be done for altruistic purposes, ie- for someone else's freedom).

There is a line to be drawn (at the invidual level) on where you will stand on the issue. I side more on the freedom/liberty then I do the life.

Once again, bullshit. If someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to do something, are you going to turn around and eat the bullet rather than do what he says?

[Alyeska]

All things are relative Mike. I would probably kill someone in cold blood to save my family from being murdered.