Mock ethics question

[patch]

I had a tough time with this one:

 

You are working in a rural community with only one available ventilator that is currently being used by a 70 year old man who would die if he was taken off it. A 3 year old girl is then flown in and requires a ventilator to live but there is no time to transfer her elsewhere. What would you do?

 

 

I could not imagine myself taking the ventilator away from the man, I think it would be cruel and unethical. Put yourself in his shoes. At the same time the little girl will probably benefit the most from it. What do you think?

[Jochi1543]

I don't think you *could* take it away unless you had his consent or his family's (if he's not in the condition to give consent).

 

It's kind of like, who gets the liver, the old fellow who's been waiting for it for 5 years or the little girl who needs one, pronto.

[Kuantum]

Personally, I don't think I could live with myself if I were to take the ventilator away from the old man knowing he needed it to live. By doing that, I would feel like I am signifying that the girls life is worth more than his - which it isn't. I know there is the whole idea that the girl would likely benefit more, is likely to be better once she no longer needs the ventilator..yada yada yada. If the situation had been presented differently, then I would have probably responded differently, but in this scenario...I just try to think that if I were the old man, or my father...how would I feel. On the other side, if I was the father of the young girl...I'd be really sad and would want that ventilator, but I realistically would find it hard within me to agree to removing the ventilator from the old man knowing he would die without it, even if it means my child may not live. It is an extremely tough decision, and I'd probably be depressed for a long time, but the old man is loved by someone else as well.

[kaymcee]

There's no way of justifying actively killing someone for the potential benefit of another. If they both required the resource at the same time and you had to make a decision of whom to give it to, you'd chose whomever had the best chance of surviving.

 

In this scenario, however, you'd do everything you could for the girl and attempt to transfer her, for better or for worse, to a place that had a free ventilator.

[Ans]

I would intubate the girl and give her oxygen manually with a bag until you could get her to a ventillator. I don't think you could take the man off the ventillator without consent.

[wassabi101]

Personally, if there was only one ventilator available and someone was already using it when this little girl came in needing one, I'd be thinking more about what we could do for this girl, not what we could do if we had a once available no longer available resource...I wouldn't even mention the elderly man.

wassabi

[Superking25]

It just seems like this is an obvious trick, since some people might see that young person's life as more valuable than the old man's. It's the same as scenarios that ask you to choose between someone who contributes to society versus someone who doesn't, or treating the victims of a car accident before the drunk because he's a drunk. All lives are equal, regardless of age, sex, race, etc.! I hope that there aren't people out there choosing young people over old people (or maybe I do in the interview, so that I can do better than them !)

[The Law]

Yeah, this one seems really clear cut for me!

I would never end up killing someone to help someone else... that's just crazy!