Ethics Q's

[Gweedo]

Here's a couple Q's for thought:

1. You are a doctor with a deaf patient. Her husband is also deaf and she is pregnant. She would like to have genetic testing done to find out if her child will be deaf. If it isn't deaf she will abort. Would you allow her to have the test? What if she was only going to abort a deaf baby?

2. You're standing by a railway lever at a fork in the tracks and a train is coming. You see that down the line, on the tracks the train is on, there are five children playing and they will get hit and killed. If you pull the lever, the train will change tracks and instead kill one old woman. What would you do?

How does #2 compare to a hospital setting:
The woman is in a coma and might never wake up. Five children come in and each needs a different organ transplant. Would you kill the old woman to save the five kids?

[QuasarCav]

When it comes down to it I would chose the most lives saved. It's like a triage(sp) they give the help to the people that have the best chance of living.

1. Her choice, alot of this is personal opinion.

2. Old lady has to die to save the lives of 5 kids.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by Gweedo
Here's a couple Q's for thought:

1. You are a doctor with a deaf patient. Her husband is also deaf and she is pregnant. She would like to have genetic testing done to find out if her child will be deaf. If it isn't deaf she will abort. Would you allow her to have the test? What if she was only going to abort a deaf baby?

2. You're standing by a railway lever at a fork in the tracks and a train is coming. You see that down the line, on the tracks the train is on, there are five children playing and they will get hit and killed. If you pull the lever, the train will change tracks and instead kill one old woman. What would you do?

How does #2 compare to a hospital setting:
The woman is in a coma and might never wake up. Five children come in and each needs a different organ transplant. Would you kill the old woman to save the five kids?

1. The deaf lady would never tell the doctor about her plans. Flawed scenario.

2. What kinda train doesn't have a conductor to toot the horn? Flawed scenario.

3. It doesn't compare. There are other organ donors. Flawed scenario.

[wildrice]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
1. The deaf lady would never tell the doctor about her plans. Flawed scenario.

2. What kinda train doesn't have a conductor to toot the horn? Flawed scenario.

3. It doesn't compare. There are other organ donors. Flawed scenario.

But the deaf lady would also be mute.
Wouldn't the doctor know that she's deaf?

[abyss]

Originally posted by wildrice


But the deaf lady would also be mute.
Wouldn't the doctor know that she's deaf?

please don't tell me you're making the assumption that all deaf individuals are mute.

Edit * 1. Doctors will not perform a genetic test unless there is a high probability for genetic lethalities (and they'll test the parents first to see if they're carriers or have family history of genetic diseases), too much risk for the baby otherwise. Since hearing loss is not considered a lethality there'd be no test in the first place.

2. Not really feasible, but to play into it, I would hit the old lady, old ladies should know better than to play on train tracks

3. If the dying woman had a will stating she would like to not be kept alive in scenarios such as this then fine, but chances are none of her organs would match any of those kids anyways.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by wildrice


But the deaf lady would also be mute.
Wouldn't the doctor know that she's deaf?

WHAT?!

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by abyss


please don't tell me you're making the assumption that all deaf individuals are mute.

haha I think he's also insinuating that all deaf people don't know how to read or write, fuck, they must be blind too!

[abyss]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
haha I think he's also insinuating that all deaf people don't know how to read or write, fuck, they must be blind too!

If you're missing one sense I guess you might as well be missing them all... how 'bout we say (just for fun) that they are all completely wheelchair bound too.

[civicrider]

Originally posted by Gweedo
Here's a couple Q's for thought:

1. You are a doctor with a deaf patient. Her husband is also deaf and she is pregnant. She would like to have genetic testing done to find out if her child will be deaf. If it isn't deaf she will abort. Would you allow her to have the test? What if she was only going to abort a deaf baby?

2. You're standing by a railway lever at a fork in the tracks and a train is coming. You see that down the line, on the tracks the train is on, there are five children playing and they will get hit and killed. If you pull the lever, the train will change tracks and instead kill one old woman. What would you do?

How does #2 compare to a hospital setting:
The woman is in a coma and might never wake up. Five children come in and each needs a different organ transplant. Would you kill the old woman to save the five kids?

1. yes i would do the test its her choice. i fully support abortion
2. pull the lever and kill the old woman
kill the old woman again, she is in a coma and might die anyway and instead you can save 5 lives.

[Kor]

This is probably not the place to discuss the abortion argument.

In the second case, you cannot be sure that the old woman will die. For instance, she may jump out of the way. Of course, this is unlikely. However, getting hit by a train is pretty much an "accident". When you are standing on train tracks, you take a certain amount of risk.

In the revised case, it wouldn't be an "accident". The dying patient was not taking a risk by going to the hospital. Moreover, your inaction would not necessarilly kill the 5 patients, as in the train case. There might be additional organ donors, etc.

The argument you are posing is subtle but there are definite differences.

I hope you learn that the fundamental truth to all moral and ethical questions is that it depends on the circumstances.

[Tyler883]

The only person that would have control over the railway switch is a railway worker.

If he doesn't route the train in the direction that it is supposed to go - then yell "get the F#ck out of the way!" - I think he should be fired.

Any breech in train routing could cause a huge accident, perhaps 2 trains colliding and derailing, toxic chemical spill, hundred injured or killed, etc.

[Z_Fan]

1. It is her choice. Period. Since it is legal to have an abortion, the reason is of no consequence to others.

2. The train hits and kills the five kids. This is the natural progression of events. If you pull the lever and the old ladie does indeed die, you are guilty of murder. This is hypothetical, but in a realistic event there is no way of knowing if the kids or the woman will truly be hit and killed. If it was a guaranteed fact, it is still not up to any individual to determine who shall perish. BUT - If one of the kids is mine, the old lady better watch out.

Hospital scenario - the five kids wait for organ donors or die waiting. Just like reality!

[thich]

2. I would never pull the lever for the train. Anyone who is stupid enough to play on train tracks and not notice the train deserves wut's coming :P

[Gweedo]

this is lame, can no one just answer the questions?

Ethics questions arent meant to have everything down to details. god everything has to be turned into an argument

[Ichigo]

Originally posted by Gweedo
Here's a couple Q's for thought:

1. You are a doctor with a deaf patient. Her husband is also deaf and she is pregnant. She would like to have genetic testing done to find out if her child will be deaf. If it isn't deaf she will abort. Would you allow her to have the test? What if she was only going to abort a deaf baby?

2. You're standing by a railway lever at a fork in the tracks and a train is coming. You see that down the line, on the tracks the train is on, there are five children playing and they will get hit and killed. If you pull the lever, the train will change tracks and instead kill one old woman. What would you do?

How does #2 compare to a hospital setting:
The woman is in a coma and might never wake up. Five children come in and each needs a different organ transplant. Would you kill the old woman to save the five kids?

1.) go ahead with the test.. Why would a deaf woman marry a deaf man and then abort her child if he/she was deaf?

2.)The old woman.. .. ..

3.)I hit the woman with a train for god sakes.. She's gonna sue me if she ever wakes up.. Time to transplant..

[mo_virgin]

Just a thought from an article i read, on a tangent to question number 1.

"Have you ever wondered why feminists have substituted the word 'choice' for the word 'abortion'? People are no longer 'pro-abortion' but are instead 'pro-choice'. This can be confusing because everything is a choice! Those in favor of school vouchers also refer to themselves as pro-choice. The 'choice' in their case is the ability of parents to choose between public or private schooling for their kids.

Anyhow, to get back to the pro-abortion crowd, the reason behind their aversion to the word 'abortion' is simple...PUBLIC RELATIONS! 'Abortion' conjures up images of dismembered babies or fetuses with their brains suctioned out.

Feminists promote the right to abort babies so late in their development that, if they weren't killed by the abortionist, the child would live on its own! Disgusting, isn't it? That's just why leftist feminazi's want to detour around the word abortion and replace it with the kinder and gentler sounding word 'choice"

[Tyler883]

Good point, people don't say "cangratulations, I heard you are having a fetus" and they also don't say "I'm going to have my baby 'sucked out of me in chunks' because its going to interfere with my future"

[DEREK57]

Deafness is genetic?

Originally posted by mo_virgin
Just a thought from an article i read, on a tangent to question number 1.

"Have you ever wondered why feminists have substituted the word 'choice' for the word 'abortion'? People are no longer 'pro-abortion' but are instead 'pro-choice'. This can be confusing because everything is a choice! Those in favor of school vouchers also refer to themselves as pro-choice. The 'choice' in their case is the ability of parents to choose between public or private schooling for their kids.

Anyhow, to get back to the pro-abortion crowd, the reason behind their aversion to the word 'abortion' is simple...PUBLIC RELATIONS! 'Abortion' conjures up images of dismembered babies or fetuses with their brains suctioned out.

Feminists promote the right to abort babies so late in their development that, if they weren't killed by the abortionist, the child would live on its own! Disgusting, isn't it? That's just why leftist feminazi's want to detour around the word abortion and replace it with the kinder and gentler sounding word 'choice"

Its just focusing on the positive aspect of their stance, as pro-life is. Although the media bias is pretty clear calling the sides 'pro-choice' and 'anti-abortion'.

[Melinda]

Please tell me that this is not going to turn into the millionth argument that we've had about abortion. These are hypothetical ethical questions, not going off on a tangent about your views on abortion. And just a small side note, they call themselves pro-choice because they are not saying to get an abortion any time you end up pregnant. They are all for the woman's right to CHOOSE what course is best for them.

1. Medical professionals should not be biased to a patient's request. As abyss said, a doctor wouldn't do these tests under the circumstances but if they did, let the parents decide. It is their legal right to do so.

2. Yell at the kids to get off the track, but dont touch the lever. Kids will hear you better than an old lady will.

3. If the woman is a vegetable and doesnt have a legal will, present the situation to her family and let them choose.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by DEREK57
Deafness is genetic?

I know blindness is. Chance of a child having the same defect as parent's (or any close relatives for that matter) is very high.