Should a Doctor resuscitate an evil person?

[notoppings]

A bank robber kills four people and flees the scene with a hostage, the police give chase. It's winter the roads are icy as the robber climbs the mountain he loses control of the vehicle plunging off the side of the road down the hill and into a frozen river. The car crashes through the ice and into the water.

The police call the rescue unit and they pull the hostage out she is injured but alive. The robber had been knocked out and since he had his belt on he was trapped and drowned. The EMT try CPR no go.

They chopper both the hostage and the robber to the hospital.

Time elapsed 20 minutes. With todays resuscitation techniques they can bring the robber back to life, there have been cases of revival on record of up to 63 minutes, with full recovery. Because of the lack of severe trauma combined with the hypothermia the robber is a case where the doctors can revive him.

That's the story the robber has already been pronounced dead, should the Doctor resuscitate the robber. The Doctor knows of the four murders and the hurt hostage should the Doctor be bound to resuscitate a know killer or should he just let an evil person stay dead?

[Malotis]

He's a doctor. It's his job to treat the patient objectively, and to not let his personal feelings get in the way of treatment. He is not a jury, he is not a judge, and it's not his place to judge which patients deserve treatment and which do not.

However, if he was close to the victims then I wouldn't put it past the doc to make "an error" that results in the robbers’ inability to revive. I say this because if someone murdered someone close me and I was then put into a position to save this persons life, then I can’t honestly say I wouldn’t simply let the mother fucker die.

[Motor Jax]

he should revive the robber, even if he did kill someone close to the doctor

otherwise, the doctor is no better person for letting someone die than the robber who intentionally killed those people

so, if the doctor just let him die, that would be intentional itself

the doctor has a duty, and its not being the judge, jury, or prosecution... it is his job, his career, his servitude to humanity to preserve without reservation

and if he lets personal convictions stand in the way of better judgement, how can anyone trust his judgement next time?

he holds the weight of someone's life on his shoulders and at the tips of his fingers. the last thing he wants to do is let emotion overwhelm logic

[xtremegeek]

A bank robber kills four people and flees the scene with a hostage, the police give chase. It's winter the roads are icy as the robber climbs the mountain he loses control of the vehicle plunging off the side of the road down the hill and into a frozen river. The car crashes through the ice and into the water.

The police call the rescue unit and they pull the hostage out she is injured but alive. The robber had been knocked out and since he had his belt on he was trapped and drowned. The EMT try CPR no go.

They chopper both the hostage and the robber to the hospital.

Time elapsed 20 minutes. With todays resuscitation techniques they can bring the robber back to life, there have been cases of revival on record of up to 63 minutes, with full recovery. Because of the lack of severe trauma combined with the hypothermia the robber is a case where the doctors can revive him.

That's the story the robber has already been pronounced dead, should the Doctor resuscitate the robber. The Doctor knows of the four murders and the hurt hostage should the Doctor be bound to resuscitate a know killer or should he just let an evil person stay dead?

You bring up an excellent moral debate:

The doctor is bound by the Hypocratic Oath to save the life. It's not for the doctor to judge.

For those Christians on this board, it's not for the Christian to judge either...that final judgement is reserved for God, therefore, the life must be saved.

And for the agnostic/atheist pragmatists on this board, don't save him because he's going to cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal and medical bills.

IF the doctor is atheist, he/she has a real conflict. What will he/she choose to follow, the Hypocratic Oath or their atheist pragmatism?

Ah yes, moral dilemas...what separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom.

[ssfanatic]

Hes going to jail for life anyways and there is no point in ruining the doctor's career over this guy so yes, resuscitate him.
But im going to pick the christian standpoint on this one. There could be something wrong with the criminal. There are a lot of criminals who have brain tumors. Let the guy live, hes going to get the death penalty most likely anyways.

[thod]

What if he was an evil doctor?

You could cut out essential parts then revive him. Let him know, he only has a week to live, that would be evil. Or maybe replace his nose with his penis. Not only evil but funny too!

[blueback]

Could the doctor just call "pass" and let the next doctor deal with it?

[vkut79]

And for the agnostic/atheist pragmatists on this board, don't save him because he's going to cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal and medical bills.

IF the doctor is atheist, he/she has a real conflict. What will he/she choose to follow, the Hypocratic Oath or their atheist pragmatism?

Money should have nothing to do with the decision. Would you consider legal and medical costs when deciding whether or not to revive an innocent person? If not, why would it become important in the case of a (unofficially) guilty person? A doctor must revive a person no matter what the legal and medical costs. A human life's value is beyond money.

[sriv]

A human life's value is beyond money.

:undecided: That's subjective and relative.

[vkut79]

:undecided: That's subjective and relative.

Show me a plausible system of morality where this is not the case, and I'll agree.

[sriv]

Show me a plausible system of morality where this is not the case, and I'll agree.

To the topic of morality, money is irrelevant, but practically many think it is. Since practicality relavent to reality, it should be taken into consideration.

In India, people die every week because of bribes, lack of funding, and across-the-board corruption in hospitals. A kind doctor (too rare) may not give resuscitation to a political machine and give the money saved to children starving on the street.

[xtremegeek]

Money should have nothing to do with the decision. Would you consider legal and medical costs when deciding whether or not to revive an innocent person? If not, why would it become important in the case of a (unofficially) guilty person? A doctor must revive a person no matter what the legal and medical costs. A human life's value is beyond money.

The stance depends on the person. I'm not saying I agree or disagree. I'm merely pointing out different sides of the debate...something I learned to do from INTJs ;-)

The criminal in this scenario would drain the medical and legal systems. An innocent person, if saved, would have drained the medical system but may also give back to that system, thus making it somewhat self-sustaining. The criminal, on the other hand, would continue to drain resources from both systems without giving back.

[vkut79]

The stance depends on the person. I'm not saying I agree or disagree. I'm merely pointing out different sides of the debate...something I learned to do from INTJs ;-)

The criminal in this scenario would drain the medical and legal systems. An innocent person, if saved, would have drained the medical system but may also give back to that system, thus making it somewhat self-sustaining. The criminal, on the other hand, would continue to drain resources from both systems without giving back.

The doctor is not a judge or executioner in my opinion, so he should not be making this kind of decision. This becomes very important when it is not clear if the person is a criminal or innocent.





vkut79 added to this post, 6 minutes and 42 seconds later...

To the topic of morality, money is irrelevant, but practically many think it is. Since practicality relavent to reality, it should be taken into consideration.

Morality is also very relevant to reality. :laugh:

In India, people die every week because of bribes, lack of funding, and across-the-board corruption in hospitals. A kind doctor (too rare) may not give resuscitation to a political machine and give the money saved to children starving on the street.

This is basically a straw-man argument. You are presenting a rare case where the decision to not resuscitate the person would overall be the most fair. You are also assuming that the doctor knows this with certainty. In most cases I don't trust a doctor to make that decision because the situation often is morally ambiguous. The doctor only has a limited amount of information, and may not be able to make the right decision. Human error can come into play. For this reason, he should not be acting as a judge or executioner in most cases - that should be left to the court, which can accumulate all of the necessary evidence and information to make the most just decision.

[sriv]

Morality is also very relevant to reality. :laugh:


True.

This is basically a straw-man argument. You are presenting a rare case where the decision to not resuscitate the person would overall be the most fair. You are also assuming that the doctor knows this with certainty. In most cases I don't trust a doctor to make that decision because the situation often is morally ambiguous. The doctor only has a limited amount of information, and may not be able to make the right decision. Human error can come into play. For this reason, he should not be acting as a judge or executioner in most cases - that should be left to the court, which can accumulate all of the necessary evidence and information to make the most just decision.

My point was that sometimes a life is not priceless.

[vkut79]

My point was that sometimes a life is not priceless.

Is your life not priceless? Why would someone else's life not be priceless? How do you know?





vkut79 added to this post, 1 minutes and 1 seconds later...

And if you don't know, wouldn't it be wiser to error on the side of caution, and not commit murder (which is basically what the doctor would be doing)?

[sriv]

Is your life not priceless? Why would someone else's life not be priceless? How do you know?

Nope. People lose their lives every day for money, my example earlier was a rare but good reason. I don't, I'm just speculating.

That starving child could be his child. He probably would have to be sure that no one would know he didn't give treatment. If not, he may get hunted down by associates. Now the example is just getting ridiculous.

[vkut79]

Nope. People lose their lives every day for money, my example earlier was a rare but good reason. I don't, I'm just speculating.

So you would sell your life for a certain amount of money?





vkut79 added to this post, 3 minutes and 26 seconds later...

Do you know what that amount is, or how much other people's lives are worth?

[sriv]

So you would sell your life for a certain amount of money?
Do you know what that amount is, or how much other people's lives are worth?

Yes, but the money would have to be going where I wanted it.

Note: You may want to know that my preferred type is INFJ...I have high ideals and would sacrafice my life to accomplish them. My realism is the only thing that stops me.

Depends. Probably very high.
In the case of picking between a corrupt political machine or a starving child, I would pick the starving child.
When the distinction is unclear or close to unclear, I refrain from judgement. Something like an innocent until proven guilty concept.

[vkut79]

Nope. People lose their lives every day for money, my example earlier was a rare but good reason. I don't, I'm just speculating.

That starving child could be his child. He probably would have to be sure that no one would know he didn't give treatment. If not, he may get hunted down by associates. Now the example is just getting ridiculous.

What if his starving child ends up dying the next day anyway, regardless of the extra money that is saved? Then there are two casualties instead of one. The doctor may not have all the information necessary to make the right decision, and the consequences are huge, no matter what price tag you put on the life of the person. Also, what kind of problems in the medical system would there be on a large scale (affecting much more people) if doctors were making these kinds of decisions. You have to consider that as well. You can't choose what exceptions can take place and which can't. Taking an isolated case like this is problematic because it's unrealistic, you have to consider all cases together.





vkut79 added to this post, 3 minutes and 31 seconds later...

Yes, but the money would have to be going where I wanted it.

Note: You may want to know that my preferred type is INFJ...I have high ideals and would sacrafice my life to accomplish them. My realism is the only thing that stops me.

Depends. Probably very high.
In the case of picking between a corrupt political machine or a starving child, I would pick the starving child.
When the distinction is unclear or close to unclear, I refrain from judgement. Something like an innocent until proven guilty concept.

Now see the problem here is the potential for error. What if you think the distinction is clear, but it is not? As a doctor, you usually do not have all of the necessary information. How you can justify deciding whether someone lives or dies when you don't have all of the information? In a real case you can't assume that you will know everything.





vkut79 added to this post, 3 minutes and 33 seconds later...

For example, the robber/murderer in the OP's example may have been under extenuating circumstances. Maybe his the lives of his family members were threatened and he was told to commit this act in order to save them. Is he still guilty? Does he deserve death? I would say no. And you wouldn't know all of this key information as a doctor. A judge, on the other hand, would know this after receiving the testimony. The legal system is in place to make a judgment based on all available information.

[sriv]

What if his starving child ends up dying the next day anyway, regardless of the extra money that is saved? Then there are two casualties instead of one. The doctor may not have all the information necessary to make the right decision, and the consequences are huge, no matter what price tag you put on the life of the person. Also, what kind of problems in the medical system would there be on a large scale (affecting much more people) if doctors were making these kinds of decisions. You have to consider that as well. You can't choose what exceptions can take place and which can't. Taking an isolated case like this is problematic because it's unrealistic, you have to consider all cases together.

Now see the problem here is the potential for error. What if you think the distinction is clear, but it is not? As a doctor, you usually do not have all of the necessary information. How you can justify deciding whether someone lives or dies when you don't have all of the information? In a real case you can't assume that you will know everything.

You have a point, there is room for error. Yet in the OP's case and my example, it is clearly known that the person is "evil" and did something illegal.
You are right about the large scale viewpoint. It cannot be legalized and/or widely implemented, only kept to extremely specific cases (probably when the doctor has seen the crime with his own eyes, umm nvm). That is unrealistic.


For example, the robber/murderer in the OP's example may have been under extenuating circumstances. Maybe his the lives of his family members were threatened and he was told to commit this act in order to save them. Is he still guilty? Does he deserve death? I would say no. And you wouldn't know all of this key information as a doctor. A judge, on the other hand, would know this after receiving the testimony. The legal system is in place to make a judgment based on all available information.

Hm...:thinking: You're right. There is would be too much ambiguity. Had I thought this over more, I might have conceded earlier. Sorry about that.

[vkut79]

You have a point, there is room for error. Yet in the OP's case and my example, it is clearly known that the person is "evil" and did something illegal.

Let's assume that it is in fact very clear that the person is evil and did something illegal (a rare case in itself). But what you are doing is basically murdering them. Can you as a doctor, who has no direct knowledge of the incident and only some limited, indirect testimony, really have the power to judge someone's crime to be deserving of the death penalty, and then to exact that death penalty. I can't imagine that in real life there would ever be a case like that. The doctor simply does not have enough information, not even close. And that is not even going to whether or not the doctor should have the right to act as executioner.

[notoppings]

Is your life not priceless? Why would someone else's life not be priceless? How do you know?





vkut79 added to this post, 1 minutes and 1 seconds later...

And if you don't know, wouldn't it be wiser to error on the side of caution, and not commit murder (which is basically what the doctor would be doing)?

The robber in this situation is already dead and has been for 20 minutes ordinary doctors don't have the skill to bring him back it takes a specialist and advanced medical treatment to bring the robber back.

If you believe in God or fate, either has already chosen to end this robbers life but the doctor in this story does have the skills to cheat death and bring the robber back so the doctor would not be committing murder he would just not be giving life back.

But I tend to agree with most of your statements as I believe that if the doctor chooses not to practice his skills to the best of his ability in this case what's to stop him from choosing on the next case due to race or gender or religious affiliation. Where does he start to draw the line. I say bring him back and let the legal system decide to let him live or die.

My other reservation is if the Doctor does save him and then the state looses the case because of a technicality, then the man goes out and kills again, how would that make the Doctor feel? A slippery slope.

[vkut79]

If you believe in God or fate, either has already chosen to end this robbers life but the doctor in this story does have the skills to cheat death and bring the robber back so the doctor would not be committing murder he would just not be giving life back.

I don't believe in God or fate. I basically believe that the doctor is obligated to do everything possible to save the person's life. It does not really matter that the person is initially dead, what matters is the eventual outcome. Assuming that the doctor is skilled enough to revive the robber, the doctor has complete control over whether or not the robber is dead or alive in the end. If you look at this way, then the doctor's choice to not revive is basically equivalent to murder, for he makes a choice between the life and death of the robber and chooses death instead of life. It may not technically be murder, but I see it as equivalent of it. It's like if you are holding someone by a rope over the edge of a cliff. You can either save them by actively pulling them up, or do nothing, keep holding them steady, until they grow tired and fall.

My other reservation is if the Doctor does save him and then the state looses the case because of a technicality, then the man goes out and kills again, how would that make the Doctor feel? A slippery slope.

The doctor should be mad at the state, for it is the state's responsibility to bring justice. But no system is perfect.

[Ivyman]

A bank robber kills four people and flees the scene with a hostage, the police give chase. It's winter the roads are icy as the robber climbs the mountain he loses control of the vehicle plunging off the side of the road down the hill and into a frozen river. The car crashes through the ice and into the water.

The police call the rescue unit and they pull the hostage out she is injured but alive. The robber had been knocked out and since he had his belt on he was trapped and drowned. The EMT try CPR no go.

They chopper both the hostage and the robber to the hospital.

Time elapsed 20 minutes. With todays resuscitation techniques they can bring the robber back to life, there have been cases of revival on record of up to 63 minutes, with full recovery. Because of the lack of severe trauma combined with the hypothermia the robber is a case where the doctors can revive him.

That's the story the robber has already been pronounced dead, should the Doctor resuscitate the robber. The Doctor knows of the four murders and the hurt hostage should the Doctor be bound to resuscitate a know killer or should he just let an evil person stay dead?

Of course the Doctor should do what he/she can, it is not up to him/her to decide whom should live or die, the Doctor must honour his/her hippocratic oath, if the Doctor does not heal/revive the Evil (a subjective perception) person deliberately then he/she is no less a murderer him/her self...murder by inaction is still murder.

[Lout]

...There are a lot of criminals who have brain tumors...

I may simply be misunderstanding the point of this statement but I don't see what it has to do with anything.

Either way, I would like to see some proof to that effect.

Regarding the original post, I believe the doctor has no right to judge the criminal, no matter how bad his past actions. As a doctor, entrusted with the supreme knowledge of preserving human life, he ought to share it equally.

[Vathir]

The robber should be revived. The doctor is not a judge, and it's the court's job to make a decision. If the doctor were to let the robber die, he would be putting his career in danger.

As an example, perhaps said robber had a wife and kids. If the wife were too find out what happened, a lawsuit could be born.

I understand this post is more of a discussion of morals as opposed to the law, but ethics are deeply tied into our judicial system.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

There is no should here. The doctor has to make a personal moral choice and will either honor his/her oath or honor some other, more personal, code of ethics that guides him/her to not resusitate the patient. I would not judge him/her either way since I don't believe that I have that right.

If I were the doctor, I'd like to think that I would let the patient die. But, you never know until you're in that situation.

[xtremegeek]

The doctor would not be 'killing' someone, he/she would not be 'saving' someone. There is a difference. If you read the hippocratic oath, depending on the translation, the doctor might not be violating the oath, should someone die. The doctor doesn't even know if the criminal has a living will...what if the alleged criminal does not want to be saved by the doctor? Part of a physician's service to patients is to ensure dignity in death. The physician cannot contribute to the death, this is a violation, but he/she can decide to not prolong the life if the patient choses or if it's the most humane path for both the patient and society.

[Jgib5328]

The doctor's job is to heal people, not to be the moral authority. He should do his job and heal the man and then allow the justice system to deal with it. If the doctor starts to make moral judgments, it'll taint the position. Should the doctor refuse service to everyone whose morals and actions he does not agree with? No, he should heal everyone equally, even if he is a mass murderer.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

The doctor's job is to heal people, not to be the moral authority. He should do his job and heal the man and then allow the justice system to deal with it. If the doctor starts to make moral judgments, it'll taint the position. Should the doctor refuse service to everyone whose morals and actions he does not agree with? No, he should heal everyone equally, even if he is a mass murderer.
How can we ask a doctor to ignore their moral values? Is it O.K. for us to ask someone who happens to be employed in the medical profession to have no personal morals?

[vkut79]

There is no should here. The doctor has to make a personal moral choice and will either honor his/her oath or honor some other, more personal, code of ethics that guides him/her to not resusitate the patient. I would not judge him/her either way since I don't believe that I have that right.

If I were the doctor, I'd like to think that I would let the patient die. But, you never know until you're in that situation.

I think if a doctor makes that kind of "personal moral choice" he should lose his job and his career. Hopefully he will never find himself in that kind of position again. We have a legal system that can exact justice after careful consideration of all evidence. The doctor's job is to follow his oath first and foremost, not supersede a legal system that is better at deciding how to punish the individual. It would be selfish and foolish for the doctor to steal that authority, especially in a life-death situation. How would you feel if your life was being decided by some doctor who may be biased, ill-informed? Keep in mind that the doctor would have no way of knowing all of the relevant information that the justice system would eventually have access to. I think we have the complete right to judge the doctor's actions. Why wouldn't we have the right to judge the moral values of another individual in our society?





vkut79 added to this post, 2 minutes and 20 seconds later...

How can we ask a doctor to ignore their moral values? Is it O.K. for us to ask someone who happens to be employed in the medical profession to have no personal morals?

The doctor's only moral values in his professional field should be those dictated by the Hippocratic oath. If his other personal moral values conflict with these, then he should step aside and let another doctor do the work, ideally.

[futureperfect5]

Some people think that doctors are evil ... that's the dilemma

[xtremegeek]

I think if a doctor makes that kind of "personal moral choice" he should lose his job and his career. Hopefully he will never find himself in that kind of position again. We have a legal system that can exact justice after careful consideration of all evidence. The doctor's job is to follow his oath first and foremost, not supersede a legal system that is better at deciding how to punish the individual. It would be selfish and foolish for the doctor to steal that authority, especially in a life-death situation.

Doctors are faced with these types of choices on a daily basis. Many of them are NT's so it's in their blood to force the moral issues to the surface, push the debate, challenge laws, etc. If you fired every doctor who made a moral decision you didn't agree with, there would be no practicing doctors in this country.

[vkut79]

Doctors are faced with these types of choices on a daily basis. Many of them are NT's so it's in their blood to force the moral issues to the surface, push the debate, challenge laws, etc. If you fired every doctor who made a moral decision you didn't agree with, there would be no practicing doctors in this country.

Really? Doctors often face such choices between saving and not saving the life of a patient? I would like to think that most doctors would almost always be in favor of saving life rather than not saving it. I find it shocking to think that there would be doctors out there who would support not saving the life of a supposed criminal (what happened to innocent until proven guilty?). I think you are exaggerating a bit there. I can understand doctors making decisions to save one life over another, sure. But to save or not save a life they are fully capable of saving? That's scary.

[xtremegeek]

Really? Doctors often face such choices between saving and not saving the life of a patient? I would like to think that most doctors would almost always be in favor of saving life rather than not saving it. I find it shocking to think that there would be doctors out there who would support not saving the life of a supposed criminal (what happened to innocent until proven guilty?). I think you are exaggerating a bit there. I can understand doctors making decisions to save one life over another, sure. But to save or not save a life they are fully capable of saving? That's scary.

Have you never heard of the "slow code" in a nursing home? The family of a 80 + year old patient fills out a living will stipulating that all measures be taken to revive the person should the need arise. The person is 80 + years old and suffering alzheimers. The person no longer even knows their loved ones who are making this decision to have a living will. The 80 + year old shows signs of congestive heart failure; the patient falls asleep at 10:30 PM; nurse checks on patient at midnight; patient is unresponsive and appears to not be breathing. She "slow codes" calling the doctor, meaning she waits until 2 AM to call the doctor. The doctor receives the call and responds at around 5 AM; by this time granny is well on her way to the next life. Family has no idea that a verbal "slow code" was called. It's all audible, but it happens every day in this country in many different ways.

[vkut79]

I don't understand why this "slow code" exists. Why was it called? Why would they delay calling the doctor and let the patient die if the living will dictates that efforts are to be made to revive the patient?

[Jgib5328]

How can we ask a doctor to ignore their moral values? Is it O.K. for us to ask someone who happens to be employed in the medical profession to have no personal morals?

He can have all of the morals that he wants, he just can't use them in his profession, it's his job is an objective one, heal the patient, nothing more. You even said it yourself, morals are subjective and absolute, whose to say the doctor's morals are better than anyone else's? Maybe if morals were objective, then it would be okay to make a decision, but since they aren't, it's not okay.

[xtremegeek]

I don't understand why this "slow code" exists. Why was it called? Why would they delay calling the doctor and let the patient die if the living will dictates that efforts are to be made to revive the patient?

In this case, the doctor has decided that the patient's right to die with dignity is more important than the family's desire to keep the patient alive at all costs. The patient is 80 + years old. He/she has lived a long and productive life and deserves to die in dignity; not hooked up to breathing machines, feeding tubes, IV ports, etc.

A doctor has to think about quality of life, as well as dignity of death. Maybe that evil person wants to die. Maybe he doesn't want to face a jury and live an unproductive life locked in a jail. Maybe, without speaking a word, the doctor knows that the evil person does not need or want heroic measures and society would be better off without heroic measures; and while the doctor is assessing this, the evil person is thinking "I want to die; please let me die." The doctor and the patient become of one mind...and thus the doctor has served his patient according to the oath he swore. You need to really delve into that oath...it's quite a unique contract between healer and patient.

[vkut79]

You're going to have a hard time convincing me that the patient, if given the choice, would choose to die rather than live. Quality of life does not really matter, life is better than death. Who cares about dignity of death, death is death and is the end of life. In most cases, like 99.9%, it just doesn't make any sense to think that the patient would prefer to not live. That's a lot of unlikely maybes that you are mentioning there. In the end I don't think the doctor can make that choice for the patient. If the patient really wants to die, they can have that arranged after they are saved. That way you won't kill someone who wants to live.

C'mon really, the evil person would not want to die. Why would he?

[Motor Jax]

and there is the possibility that he would come out of it a different person when knowing that his own life was on the line

[Jgib5328]

You're going to have a hard time convincing me that the patient, if given the choice, would choose to die rather than live. Quality of life does not really matter, life is better than death. Who cares about dignity of death, death is death and is the end of life. In most cases, like 99.9%, it just doesn't make any sense to think that the patient would prefer to not live. That's a lot of unlikely maybes that you are mentioning there. In the end I don't think the doctor can make that choice for the patient. If the patient really wants to die, they can have that arranged after they are saved. That way you won't kill someone who wants to live.

C'mon really, the evil person would not want to die. Why would he?

What if you live every day of your life in pain and you have no family or anyone who cares about you? In that case I'd choose death every time.

[vkut79]

That's why I said 99.9% of cases. For the overwhelming majority of patients, life is preferred over death. Even in the case you bring up, there is still hope for improvement. Things can get better in life for the person, and with death there is no hope.

[xtremegeek]

You're going to have a hard time convincing me that the patient, if given the choice, would choose to die rather than live. Quality of life does not really matter, life is better than death. Who cares about dignity of death, death is death and is the end of life. In most cases, like 99.9%, it just doesn't make any sense to think that the patient would prefer to not live. That's a lot of unlikely maybes that you are mentioning there. In the end I don't think the doctor can make that choice for the patient. If the patient really wants to die, they can have that arranged after they are saved. That way you won't kill someone who wants to live.

C'mon really, the evil person would not want to die. Why would he?

You don't know that. You're not in that person's shoes. And there is and has been a tremendous debate going on in this country about a person's right to die and die with dignity. You just haven't been exposed to it. if you are not working in the healthcare industry or caring for a dying loved one, you would have no idea.

[vkut79]

You don't know that. You're not in that person's shoes. And there is and has been a tremendous debate going on in this country about a person's right to die and die with dignity. You just haven't been exposed to it. if you are not working in the healthcare industry or caring for a dying loved one, you would have no idea.

Alright I guess you have a point. But I imagine that even in the cases where a patient expresses a preference for death, it may just be because they feel no hope that the pain and suffering will ever end. But in fact there may be hope after all, but the patient is just blind to it because they are overwhelmed by the present pain. In that case it's not clear if letting the patient die is the right decision, and usually probably isn't.

In the example that we are talking about though, I am assuming that the guy is otherwise healthy and is not experiencing great pain. And an unhappy life for him alone is not enough, in my opinion, to permit not saving his life. Unhappy lives can be made happier.

[xtremegeek]

Alright I guess you have a point. But I imagine that even in the cases where a patient expresses a preference for death, it may just be because they feel no hope that the pain and suffering will ever end. But in fact there may be hope after all, but the patient is just blind to it because they are overwhelmed by the present pain. In that case it's not clear if letting the patient die is the right decision, and usually probably isn't.

In the example that we are talking about though, I am assuming that the guy is otherwise healthy and is not experiencing great pain. And an unhappy life for him alone is not enough, in my opinion, to permit not saving his life. Unhappy lives can be made happier.

You line up 10 doctors in a room and give them this scenario and you'll get ten different answers as to how to handle the situation.

Doctors in this country have competing documents to contend with: the Hippocratic Oath and The Constitution. In this country, a person has a right to choose his/her quality of life. Each one of us has the right to refuse medical treatment. And doctors have the right to determine whether or not a certain treatment is truly life-sustaining. So a person ends up on life support. One doctor says the patient is a vegetable and the support should be removed; another doctor disagrees and in the end the courts decide - the Constitution supercedes the Hippocratic Oath.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I think if a doctor makes that kind of "personal moral choice" he should lose his job and his career. Hopefully he will never find himself in that kind of position again. We have a legal system that can exact justice after careful consideration of all evidence. The doctor's job is to follow his oath first and foremost, not supersede a legal system that is better at deciding how to punish the individual. It would be selfish and foolish for the doctor to steal that authority, especially in a life-death situation. How would you feel if your life was being decided by some doctor who may be biased, ill-informed? Keep in mind that the doctor would have no way of knowing all of the relevant information that the justice system would eventually have access to. I think we have the complete right to judge the doctor's actions. Why wouldn't we have the right to judge the moral values of another individual in our society?





vkut79 added to this post, 2 minutes and 20 seconds later...



The doctor's only moral values in his professional field should be those dictated by the Hippocratic oath. If his other personal moral values conflict with these, then he should step aside and let another doctor do the work, ideally.
I think you are being niave if you think that the justice system eeks out justice. I also think that you are forcing your personal morals onto another person. If you feel comfortable doing this, then you must feel comfortable having other people do it with you.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 47 minutes and 59 seconds later...

He can have all of the morals that he wants, he just can't use them in his profession, it's his job is an objective one, heal the patient, nothing more. You even said it yourself, morals are subjective and absolute, whose to say the doctor's morals are better than anyone else's? Maybe if morals were objective, then it would be okay to make a decision, but since they aren't, it's not okay.
If morals are subjective (I don't think they're absolute), then each person must decide for themselves what is moral.....including doctors.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 2 minutes and 19 seconds later...

You're going to have a hard time convincing me that the patient, if given the choice, would choose to die rather than live. Quality of life does not really matter, life is better than death. Who cares about dignity of death, death is death and is the end of life. In most cases, like 99.9%, it just doesn't make any sense to think that the patient would prefer to not live. That's a lot of unlikely maybes that you are mentioning there. In the end I don't think the doctor can make that choice for the patient. If the patient really wants to die, they can have that arranged after they are saved. That way you won't kill someone who wants to live.

C'mon really, the evil person would not want to die. Why would he?
Quality of life doesn't matter to you..............it does to me. That is because we have a different set of ideals, morals, etc. Who gets to decide if your morals are better than mine?

[Antares]

The doctor would be violating his work ethics if he does not do his duty. An example would be SARS in Hong Kong. Doctors weren't allowed to leave their stations or abandon their patients on the risk of death. This is what you commit into when you took the job. It's really not the doctor's place to decide who lives and who dies.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

The doctor would be violating his work ethics if he does not do his duty. An example would be SARS in Hong Kong. Doctors weren't allowed to leave their stations or abandon their patients on the risk of death. This is what you commit into when you took the job. It's really not the doctor's place to decide who lives and who dies.
It may be that the doctor is violating his work ethic if he chooses to not resusitate the person. However, it is his place to decide whether he wants to violate his own personal morality to follow the morality imposed by his profession or not. I agree that it is not everybody's place to decide who lives and dies. However, it is everybody's place to decide whether they want to facilitate a life that is, in their moral opinion, dangerous to the innocent.

[meanlittlechimp]

Evil people should be saved.
Those without health insurance, should be left on the curb to rot.