[ QUOTE ]
There are some people in the hospital. Two that each need a kidney, two that each need a lung, one that needs a heart, one that needs a liver, and one guy that has a broken leg.

Let's make it more interesting. The people in need of organs are nobel-winning scientists and they all have families, and the guy with a broken leg is a drunkard bum with no family, but has never hurt a fly.

The people that need organs are going to die within the hour if they don't get transplants. A miracle doctor can perform all the transplants in time, but the only prospective donor is the guy with the broken leg.

Should the doctor kill the one broken leg patient to save six others?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But the only reason is common sense as it relates to a value equation. I think people are reluctant to answer hypotheticals like these because of some underlying assumption that it commits to a more generalized policy.

This reminds me of the old Philosophy 101 dilemna - you're held captive and given the choice between shooting 1 person in a group in front of you, or having your captor shoot them all. I could never understand how anyone could even hesitate over this - you pick someone and shoot. I suppose the only reason is a lack of flexibility, a need to define good ethical behaviour as having an inherent quality within an act, or maybe just cowardice - but the key point is that there is no such thing as inaction, inaction is action and it's choice. You're culpable if you fail to make a choice just as much (if not more) than if you seek one out.