Organs for the more deserving?

[Da Bao]

Being the doctor I'd have to do it on a first come first serve basis.

Although given that Person B has done a lot of things that affected his health and would continue to affect his health, it's likely he'd be dropped from the list.

But if I were really given a choice in the matter, I'd have to go with Person B. His family funds the hospital, if that money is helping to save hundreds or thousands more lives then I'll have to go with him. Jeremy Benthem's Utilitarianism, "Greatest good for the greatest number". I'd feel guilty for Person A because he's more deserving of the organ, but I'd have to think about all the other people afterwards.

[Trien Chieu]

Being the doctor I'd have to do it on a first come first serve basis.

Although given that Person B has done a lot of things that affected his health and would continue to affect his health, it's likely he'd be dropped from the list.

But if I were really given a choice in the matter, I'd have to go with Person B. His family funds the hospital, if that money is helping to save hundreds or thousands more lives then I'll have to go with him. Jeremy Benthem's Utilitarianism, "Greatest good for the greatest number". I'd feel guilty for Person A because he's more deserving of the organ, but I'd have to think about all the other people afterwards.

=============================

Person A is an upstanding citizen. He is a special needs school teacher in an inner city school, and does charity work on the weekends. He also organizes local fundraisers for the homeless and elderly veterans. He makes $28K a year, and donates 15% of it to his religious community.

Person B used to be a raging alcoholic and a drug user. He partied all the time and was twice accused of rape, but the issues were settled out of court. He was also involved in an incident of beating a person and breaking his arm because of his race. In the last 2 years, he has been to rehab and had kicked his habits when he fell ill. He is a typical millionaire trust fund baby, and his mother is also on the hospital board. His family donates millions of dollars to the facility, and helps raise millions more. His mother has hinted that if her son does not live, she would withdraw all funding to this facility.

===============================

Da Bao, how could you choose Person B over Person A if you have a choice??
I guess you do not want to lose your job. I guess your job is more important than a life of a stranger...

If first come first serve is the rule and Person B is ahead on the list, then I have no choice but to follow the rule. On the other hand, if there is no rule and I can decide who will receive the organ, I would definitely choose person A because he really deserve it. Person B is just trash of society, society is a better place without him...

[jadebunny9]

We're really not in the position to judge about who's more morally upright, etc. Whoever's first on that list gets it first.

[xJadedx]

We're really not in the position to judge about who's more morally upright, etc. Whoever's first on that list gets it first.

Agreed.

Usually that's the way it works.

If not, then as much as it makes me feel sad, I'd still go with the utilitarian choice, since in the long run, it benefits more people. I'm there to save lives, not to judge people, so really, I cannot and should not let the personality or moral values of the patients affect my decision.

Saving person B has a higher chance of obtaining more resources to save even more people, even if I liked person A much better.

It's a very hard decision to make, and in this case, there really isn't such a right or wrong decision.

[Trien Chieu]

Agreed.

Usually that's the way it works.

If not, then as much as it makes me feel sad, I'd still go with the utilitarian choice, since in the long run, it benefits more people. I'm there to save lives, not to judge people, so really, I cannot and should not let the personality or moral values of the patients affect my decision.

Saving person B has a higher chance of obtaining more resources to save even more people, even if I liked person A much better.

It's a very hard decision to make, and in this case, there really isn't such a right or wrong decision.

I guess saving person B will at least help you keep your job with good chance of big promotion... On the other hand, saving person A won't do you any good since he/she is just a poor teacher who just earn enough for a living while your job is at risk...

You strongly criticised people eating sharkfin soup and make big deal of it while you rather save a rich criminal and instead of a poor good man....

[xJadedx]

I guess saving person B will at least help you keep your job with good chance of big promotion... On the other hand, saving person A won't do you any good since he/she is just a poor teacher who just earn enough for a living while your job is at risk...

You strongly criticised people eating sharkfin soup and make big deal of it while you rather save a rich criminal and instead of a poor good man....

As a doctor, it would be my job to save as many people as possible in my life. Saving patient B would allow us to gain more resources that will enable us to treat many more other people. Unfortunately, this won't happen if I saved person A, no matter how much I like him better. When I look at this, I look at what is best for all the patients in the long run, including future patients. I did not, nor would I ever, look at it in terms of my own job or a promotion.

This is a very difficult situation, and people would be right saving either. I choose the second person because saving him is more likely to result in the resources to save more people.

As to your second point - me not wanting to consume products from an endangered species has nothing to do with how I choose to treat a patient. I guess it was an attempt at you to jab at my moral values and to perhaps downplay my views. But it won't work, and here's why.

You make it sound as if it's really just a simple choice between a rich criminal and a poor good man. However, as a doctor, it's not my job to judge the criminal (that's for the judge and jury). Even if I hated his guts and really liked the good man, it would still only be a personal opinion, but not a professional one. My job is to pick one of two patients for a treatment. In this case, it seems like a better choice for the hospital's other patients in the long run to pick the second patient.

You make it seem as if a criminal is so obviously not deserving of the treatment. But here's the thing: it is not in my (or your) place to judge. It is not in your place to judge who deserves to live and who deserves to die. Both are human beings, and both have the right to life. When it comes down to it, you are choosing one of two lives to save. But in this case, by saving the second patient, you actually have a chance of saving more than just one person with his family's donation to the hospital.

Thus, as much as it would upset me personally to make that choice, it would still be a better choice in my opinion.

[Ren Ying Ying]

I guess saving person B will at least help you keep your job with good chance of big promotion... On the other hand, saving person A won't do you any good since he/she is just a poor teacher who just earn enough for a living while your job is at risk...

You strongly criticised people eating sharkfin soup and make big deal of it while you rather save a rich criminal and instead of a poor good man....

it doesn't matter. both of them are "lives". saving a person is what matters. saving more is even better.

putting words into her mouth (or rather post) isn't going to change the argument.

[kidd]

I guess saving person B will at least help you keep your job with good chance of big promotion... On the other hand, saving person A won't do you any good since he/she is just a poor teacher who just earn enough for a living while your job is at risk...

Always about 'me' and 'myself'. How typical of TC. Jaded WenEr is talking about saving more people by choosing the not so nice person. But, all you see is 'getting promotions', 'saving own you job' etc when Jaded WenEr never mentioned those.

You strongly criticised people eating sharkfin soup and make big deal of it while you rather save a rich criminal and instead of a poor good man....

Still trying to justify your sharkfin eating hobby?

No matter what Jaded WenEr said, you will never see his/her point, because you will just replace his/her words with you own words. Perfect example is the first quote. Jaded WenEr was thinking in a humanitarian way. Saving more people vs saving 1 person. But, even when Jaded WenEr has written those opinions black & white, u didn't see it. What you see is 'promotions' and 'not risking one's job', stuff that I believe never came across Jaded WenEr's mind when he/she was considering this issue and certainly was not written anywhere in his/her post.

I might not agree with everything he/she said, but, I understand his/her POV and I don't see any contradiction between his/her stand on sharkfins and this.

Discourage sharkfin consumption -> saving an endangered species
Choose rich bad guy over nice poor guy -> saving a lot more lives.

But are seen in a humanitarian point. One is saving the species and the environment. One is saving more humans.

None of his/her point was about money or further his own career.

I guess person who only cares about 'me', 'I', 'myself', 'my promotion', 'my money', 'my pleasure' will never be able to see the POV of people who actually cares for more than just 'self'.

[KeongJai]

I guess saving person B will at least help you keep your job with good chance of big promotion... On the other hand, saving person A won't do you any good since he/she is just a poor teacher who just earn enough for a living while your job is at risk...

Did you even read what Da Bao wrote? "Greatest Good for Greatest Number". If person A was about to find a cure for cancer then person A gets the pick. In this case, saving person B will save more lives in the long run.

[yittz]

SHouldn't let your prejudice and discrimination cloud your clinical judgement. Who are you to judge what's right and wrong, especially when it's clear there are differences in values.

[Trien Chieu]

Jaded WenEr and Kidd, saving Person B is an easy choice, but definitely the wrong choice. Sometimes in life, we have to do what is right instead of what is easy. Choosing Person B over person A would send a wrong message to society that "Good and bad don't matter, as long as you are rich you can do anything and society still have to bow to you..."

[kidd]

Jaded WenEr and Kidd, saving Person B is an easy choice, but definitely the wrong choice. Sometimes in life, we have to do what is right instead of what is easy. Choosing Person B over person A would send a wrong message to society that "Good and bad don't matter, as long as you are rich you can do anything and society still have to bow to you..."

Which choice is easy, which choice is hard, depends on the personality and thinking of the person making the choices. I don't think you, TC, would have any difficulty choosing Person A over Person B.
Oops, no. I think you will have difficulty too, since you will be thinking of your promotions and your job.

You think choosing to save someone unworthy over someone worthy against your conscience is an easy choice?

Lastly, I never said I agree with what Jaded WenEr. I still haven't made up my mind which to choose (so, it's NOT an easy choice). But, I understand his/her POV, unlike you. You can agree or disagree with him/her, I don't have a problem with it. But, the problem with you is, you don't even understand where Jaded WenEr and Da Bao is coming from. You actually think they are selfish and just thinking about their job and saving their own asses. Thus, I posted my previous post, to explain to you where is Jaded WenEr coming from (other than pointing out your weak attempt at justifying your sharkfin eating hobby). I think KeongJai is trying to do that with you for Da Bao too.

Ok, I'm trying to be very objective here. So, I agree that you make some good points this recent reply of yours. That's why I have so much difficulty choosing. On one hand, Person A deserve the organs more, while one the other hand choosing Person B will benefit more people. Don't forget, there are many other deserving people (some might have contributed a lot to the society) who might benefit from the money that comes from saving Person B.

[Trien Chieu]

Which choice is easy, which choice is hard, depends on the personality and thinking of the person making the choices. I don't think you, TC, would have any difficulty choosing Person A over Person B.
Oops, no. I think you will have difficulty too, since you will be thinking of your promotions and your job.

You think choosing to save someone unworthy over someone worthy against your conscience is an easy choice?

Lastly, I never said I agree with what Jaded WenEr. I still haven't made up my mind which to choose (so, it's NOT an easy choice). But, I understand his/her POV, unlike you. You can agree or disagree with him/her, I don't have a problem with it. But, the problem with you is, you don't even understand where Jaded WenEr and Da Bao is coming from. You actually think they are selfish and just thinking about their job and saving their own asses. That the gist of my post, to explain to you where is Jaded WenEr coming from. I think KeongJai is trying to do that with you for Da Bao too.

As I said before, if the rule is first come first serve and Person B is first on the list, then I have to choose him because that is the rule. On the other hand if there is no rule or Person A is ahead on the list, then I would definitely choode Person A. I don't care if Person B is son of Bill Gate or Warren Buffet. I don't care if I have to lose my job and promotion over this. Money is important, but there are things in life that is more important than money. As a human being, we have to do what is right. We should send a message to society that money is not everything.

[xJadedx]

Jaded WenEr and Kidd, saving Person B is an easy choice, but definitely the wrong choice. Sometimes in life, we have to do what is right instead of what is easy. Choosing Person B over person A would send a wrong message to society that "Good and bad don't matter, as long as you are rich you can do anything and society still have to bow to you..."

As I said before, if the rule is first come first serve and Person B is first on the list, then I have to choose him because that is the rule. On the other hand if there is no rule or Person A is ahead on the list, then I would definitely choode Person A. I don't care if Person B is son of Bill Gate or Warren Buffet. I don't care if I have to lose my job and promotion over this. Money is important, but there are things in life that is more important than money. As a human being, we have to do what is right. We should send a message to society that money is not everything.

Again, you don't get where I even come from.

I never said the choice is easy. I had to think about this for a long time as well. It's a terribly hard choice to make, and currently, if I had to make the choice, I probably will choose person B, for the reasons I previously stated. I never said that this choice makes me very happy, because I don't want a good person to die either. But given the current situation, by letting go of the one good guy, I'd have more chances to save more people later on.

It's not about my job or promotion, and the last thing it's about is choosing someone with money. It's about which option allows me to save more people in the long run. Say the situation is like this, patient A is a nice good guy, patient B is a jerk whose family has recently developed a piece of equipment that is vital to curing another currently-hard-to-cure disease, and the family has agreed that, if we save their son, they will donate that piece of equipment to the hospital. Then in this case, I'd still go with person B, not because they have money, but because they will be able t provide us with something that can save more lives.

If the situation is where both are good guys, or both are criminals, but one on them will allow us to save more lives later on (through donations or other means), then I'd probably pick that one, because saving him will allow me to save more lives later on.

[Trien Chieu]

Again, you don't get where I even come from.

I never said the choice is easy. I had to think about this for a long time as well. It's a terribly hard choice to make, and currently, if I had to make the choice, I probably will choose person B, for the reasons I previously stated. I never said that this choice makes me very happy, because I don't want a good person to die either. But given the current situation, by letting go of the one good guy, I'd have more chances to save more people later on.

It's not about my job or promotion, and the last thing it's about is choosing someone with money. It's about which option allows me to save more people in the long run. Say the situation is like this, patient A is a nice good guy, patient B is a jerk whose family has recently developed a piece of equipment that is vital to curing another currently-hard-to-cure disease, and the family has agreed that, if we save their son, they will donate that piece of equipment to the hospital. Then in this case, I'd still go with person B, not because they have money, but because they will be able t provide us with something that can save more lives.

If the situation is where both are good guys, or both are criminals, but one on them will allow us to save more lives later on (through donations or other means), then I'd probably pick that one, because saving him will allow me to save more lives later on.

Ok, so let give the benefit of a doubt that you are not for monitary reason.
Now, you choose to save Person B who was a rapist and racist over a good good poor guy who had done his best to help society. You would bow to the powerful rich criminal because of his rich family. You might save more people in the long run but you also done injustice to the good poor guy. As for money, we always can ask government for funding or society itself can contribute through higher taxes, ect... You may have good intention, but also send a really bad message to society and the powerful as a whole. The powerful should learn that they can't get everything they wanted using power...

[xJadedx]

Ok, so let give the benefit of a doubt that you are not for monitary reason.
Now, you choose to save Person B who was a rapist and racist over a good good poor guy who had done his best to help society. You would bow to the powerful rich criminal because of his rich family. You might save more people in the long run but you also done injustice to the good poor guy. As for money, we always can ask government for funding or society itself can contribute through higher taxes, ect... You may have good intention, but also send a really bad message to society and the powerful as a whole. The powerful should learn that they can't get everything they wanted using power...

Again, you're not getting it.

This here is a hypothetical situation, and I'm answering what I would do in this hypothetical situation, where only these conditions are given.

In a real situation similar to this, there would be a lot of other factors weighing to make my decision. But that's not the case here. Here, we are discussing what we would do in this hypothetical situation.

I'm not sending a bad message - my message that I'm sending is, as a doctor, you should try to save as many lives as possible. Please don't put words in my mouth as if I'm bowing to a criminal because of his family. Whether or not he's criminal is not for me to decide, but for the judicial system. If he is indeed the terrible person you claim he is, then the judicial system will see that he gets punished. But it's not up to me to decide. In fact, a doctor shouldn't choose whether or not to save someone based on his/her criminal records, because that again, is not the doctor's job. If a doctor decides that he will save a good person, but not someone who is a criminal, then he is actually not fulfilling his duties as a doctor. I said before, a doctor is there to save lives, so a doctor should treat everyone as a fellow human being. The judging of the criminal will be done by those who are appointed to do so, like the judge and jury.

A judge letting a rich criminal get away with crime is sending a wrong message saying that the rich and powerful can get away with anything. A doctor saving someone so that he can get resources to save more people later on is not sending that message.

In this case, saving either one of them is doing injustice to the other, because as a doctor you should try and save both, since both are humans and both have the right to life. Thus, all I'm doing is choosing between one of two human beings to save. But saving one of them (in this case, person B) will give me the opportunity to save more later on. I am only looking at which option would allow me to save more people later on, not at the patient's own records or his family's.
If the situation was reversed, say the criminal was a poor guy and the good guy was rich, then I'd save the good guy, not because of the fact that he's good, and not because I feel the criminal doesn't deserve treatment, but because saving the good guy will allow me to save more patients.

[kidd]

Ok, so let give the benefit of a doubt that you are not for monitary reason.

What benefit of doubt?

Jaded WenEr has said it again and again and again that it's not about the money but the chance to save more people.

Please drill this into your head first. You are always talking about 'money is not everything', but all your head is just filled with 'money', 'monetary gain', 'career advancement'.

Yes, it's hard to fathom for you. But, there are people who care about helping other people and not just keep to their own business.There are other people who would go the extra mile without thinking of self benefit and monetary gain.

As a human being, we have to do what is right.

Right and wrong is subjective. It depends on a person's value system. There is no absolute right or absolute wrong. Most things in this world belong to the grey area.

For example, there are many others who think eating an endangered species is wrong and each and everyone of us should play a part in preserving the environment and saving the species.
So, as a responsible human being, shouldn't you do the right thing and stop eating sharkfins?
Of course, you won't. Because, in your point of view, there's nothing wrong with eating endangered animals.

[Da Bao]

=============================


===============================

Da Bao, how could you choose Person B over Person A if you have a choice??
I guess you do not want to lose your job. I guess your job is more important than a life of a stranger...

If first come first serve is the rule and Person B is ahead on the list, then I have no choice but to follow the rule. On the other hand, if there is no rule and I can decide who will receive the organ, I would definitely choose person A because he really deserve it. Person B is just trash of society, society is a better place without him...

Given the choice, I take person B over person A, not because my job is more important than the life of a stranger, but because person B's money will save more people. Choosing to save Person A saves person A alone. Saving Person B saves all the other people with his mother's funding. Taking away that funding could result in a lot of people who can't receive the proper care and might die. Those people could very well be people who really deserve care too.

[patricia n]

Purely hypothetical, say you were the director in charge of organ donations and a kidney came in that perfectly matched two people. Both are currently in the hospital right now, and the kidney would save either person's life.

Person A is an upstanding citizen. He is a special needs school teacher in an inner city school, and does charity work on the weekends. He also organizes local fundraisers for the homeless and elderly veterans. He makes $28K a year, and donates 15% of it to his religious community.

Person B used to be a raging alcoholic and a drug user. He partied all the time and was twice accused of rape, but the issues were settled out of court. He was also involved in an incident of beating a person and breaking his arm because of his race. In the last 2 years, he has been to rehab and had kicked his habits when he fell ill. He is a typical millionaire trust fund baby, and his mother is also on the hospital board. His family donates millions of dollars to the facility, and helps raise millions more. His mother has hinted that if her son does not live, she would withdraw all funding to this facility.

To whom do you give this kidney to? Do you base it on the morality of the patients or is that unfair of you to judge? Do you leave it up to chance? Which do you think would be better for society at large? on one hand, you'd be saving an honestly good human being who has tried his hardest to contribute to society. on the other, you'd continue funding for your hospital, possibly saving thousands of lives.

hurry up, you have about 2 minutes to decide! that kidney is on ice right now!

i would give it to the more deserving pt. pt 2 will probably get liver cirrhosis from chronic alcohol abuse, and he will likely get a liver transplant but he will also destroy that liver from alcohol abuse. ultimately, he'll die from alcohol abuse, hence wasting a kidney and too many livers. what's the point in giving precious organ to someone who doesn't appreciate it?

but knowing how corrupt some hospital facilities are, pt 2 will likely get it although imo patient 1 will make better use of it.

[Sourplum]

i would give it to the more deserving pt. pt 2 will probably get liver cirrhosis from chronic alcohol abuse, and he will likely get a liver transplant but he will also destroy that liver from alcohol abuse. ultimately, he'll die from alcohol abuse, hence wasting a kidney and too many livers. what's the point in giving precious organ to someone who doesn't appreciate it?

but knowing how corrupt some hospital facilities are, pt 2 will likely get it although imo patient 1 will make better use of it.

Did you read the other responses given first Particia?