Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Suppose the two people are the same age, say 35, but one of them has a fatal condition that means they won't live another month?
Suppose two people are the same age, but one of them is a doctor, and they're in a situation where there are ten other people who need life-saving medical attention around them?
There are plenty of other hypotheticals one could come up with. Would you give the same answer there? Would you also say that the additional information I just gave you should be totally irrelevant?
|
By age I meant future expected life span.
But I would draw the line and wouldn’t preferentially saving the doctor. Individual life has dignity and value that is not easily measurable. Even the age one is very uncomfortable. Lots of the medical triage decision making does not take this into account at all. I don’t think the edge cases have that much value they would be rare in any system. The value in placing life as sacrosanct is that it prevents equivocation that BoLevi is pointing out where you value life’s that are close to you more than are further away. And just cover up selfish decision making with “moral reasoning”
If we follow the utilitarian path we can kill the useless person to use the organs to save 10 people.