Who Has More Worth???
Three people are equally up in line, awaiting an operation that will save them from a very rare heart disease, however, a decision must be made that will allow 1 of the 3 to actually receive this operation the soonest. The other two may have to wait up to 2 months, in which they will probably not survive long enough. The first patient is a 20 year old girl who was forced into prostitution when she was 14. She is also a drug addict and has unprotected sex all the time. The second patient is a 30 year old mother of two young children. She is also a special needs teacher for very young children. The third patient is a 50 year old lawyer who's wife has recently died and he has 3 grown children. However, he has done many illegal things throughout his life that has made him a very rich man.
How should this decision be made? Are doctors allowed to evaluate this criteria and make a "valid" decision based on all this information? Can one person's life have more worth than someone else's? Should the decision be made randomly, like picking a name out of a hat?
8 Comments:
*groans* you didn't just ask this questing Annie, did you? :P
A very interesting question though.. I would say that all of the background information MUST be disregarded. All human beings have equal worth against every other human being. Suppose we throw in another person... Call him Ted Bundy. I don't think there is any one of us that would say that Ted Bundy should get first shot at that operation, based on what we know of him. But at the same time, Ted Bundy is a human being, and while he has done very bad things, he is just as entitled to proper health treament as the next guy. As is the 20 year old prostitute, the 30 year old special needs teacher and the 50 year old crroked lawyer.
I've been doing a lot of reading and writing in consequentialist ethics of late. The consequentialist would be forced to ask which patient would provide the most desirable consequences over time, to society. It seems to me that the consequentialist would have to choose the 30 year old special needs teacher. But what consequentialism fails to take into account is the intrinsic worth of all human beings, regardless of what actions they may or not do. The consequentialist is forced to rank human beings based on actions. But quite frankly there are lots of people who have done bad things that end up doing a great good. I remember reading once (pardon my lack of surces) that Winston Churchill drank like a sieve, smoked like a chimeny, and loved to have affairs. Yet this man was one of the greatest leaders of a nation through a difficult time. On the other hand, Hitler grew up doing evrything right - he never disobeyed, he was a good boy, and always lived by the rules. That doesn't excuse his horrible hate and terrible human rights abuses. I woukld argue that is is not what someone does that makes them worth saving, but rather, they are worth saving because they are a human being, and in so far as something is a human being, according to the severity of need, they ought to be helped.
So to answer your question - if they all need the surgey equally as bad, then a coin will have to do. If there is some way for doctors to determine objectively who needs it the most, then take the person who needs it the most. Otherwise, in the interest of recognizing the intrinsic worth of everyone, and not discriminating against action, a coin works best.
Hey Peter,
Thanks for your reply. I'll get back to you real soon. I miss your comments (and our philosophy convos).
Take care and speak soon,
Annie!
This argument is so superficial. The Canadian medical system has consistently shown that life history plays a small role in determining who gets "chosen". Alcoholics and people with degenerative diseases like hepatitis contracted from high risk lifestyles get liver transplants all the time. What state your body is in does play a role. Sadly enough, the sicker you are doesn't mean you a bumped to the front of the line because you have to be in somewhat of a stable position to undergo surgery - dying under the knife helps no one. And if this is merely an operation, they can be churned out quite quickly, especially for heart conditions, as they are relatively high on the priority list for hospital operating room allocations. Transplants are a different story. This is where quality of life does play a SMALL role. It is truly the gift of life, considering someone had to die to give it. Yet, when your name comes up on the list, they'll give you the lung transplant, as you stub out your cigarette and promise to "never, never" do that again. The system is disgustingly egalitarian under the ever persistant cloud of extreme political correctness that our society sits under. If we were in the States, it would be simple - money talks, end of story. Pay up or sit and wait for Medicare.
J.
Hey J,
I couldn't agree with you more. However, the question was asking whether we can actually sit down and measure the worth of another individual's life, depending on who they are, they're past or they're potential in the future.
I too believe (like Peter) that every human being has equal worth, regardless of their status, age, etc.... and I agree with you J that those who pay up will get treated immediately. However, due to the fact that this question is so "superficial" it is meant to get you thinking about whether we can place more worth on one's life over the other. For Peter to say that we cannot do this, well due to our health care system, we obviously do. We place more worth on someone's life according to whether they actually have health insurance or not. We feel that those who pay their taxes DESERVE to be treated more than the other person who does not (or cannot) pay for health insurance. Therefore, we DO believe that a person is more worthy of immediate treatment based on our health care system.
Peter, in regards to your Ted Bundy example, I do not believe that certain individuals who have violated the law in such a way deserve the same status of "human being" like the rest of those individuals who would never commit such crimes. The fact that we take away their freedom obviously means that we think they're less worthy of a human being, since they do not deserve the same rights as us. People like Paul Bernardo or Ted Bundy are being removed from society (or in other words, rejected by society) and therefore are not given the right to participate and receive the same benefits as free individuals. So how can someone so cruel deserve the same treatment as a human being like the rest of us, when there is actual proof that they're not worthy like the rest?
I think the way we currently deal with such decisions is to say that it is "fair" to give it to the person who was put on the waiting line first... Then again, the severity of the individual's problem could be a factor too. I suppose another measure of fairness could be to sort them in order of expected date of death without the operation.
Peter Thurley said that a "coin will have to do." I know he means to just draw randomly and uniformly, but I'm interested to know how he thinks a coin would be used to pick one person among three.
"J in Edm," who is NOT the above-signed "J"
Cool blog, interesting information... Keep it UP cheap loan secured Wellbutrin adhd treatment Utah long term care insurance penis size valtrex overnight big huge fat girls with big boobs internal revenue service tax form
You have an outstanding good and well structured site. I enjoyed browsing through it Bulk email programs outlook $89.00
Where did you find it? Interesting read Nfl cbs sports hard drive clone C 3741111 replacement water filters 6 free mobile ringtones Acne and toxins Ceet motorcycle seat covers Casio data bank watch instructions water filter rv water filters by shurflo Oxy hepa filter Xp files cannot be deleted read from source Toyota corolla ignition problem daytona 3d2x video card driver Zithromax and liquors single hole bathrooom faucet K+n+air+cleaner
Post a Comment
<< Home