We do, however, have people who have the job of doing so.
Doctor’s and first responders, in times when there are more patients requiring immediate attention than there are resources available for all of them, literally do life arithmetic.
The algorithm we’ve decided on prioritizes likelihood of survival over quantity of survival in cases with low information, like a plane crash or an explosion.
Only a few years ago we had a national incident that required decisions about who to kill to be made rather often, specifically regarding ventilators. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2005689
The way I read it is that the killer had no prior knowledge of the victim’s organ donor status. It sounds to me like a killer retroactively trying to justify their actions.
You take a life to potentially save zero, one, or many.
It would depend of the health state of the victims, the probability of success of organ(s) transplant, and many more subtle factors to consider…
How do you choose the next potential victims,
It is above all a moral question -_-…
Are those waiting for a transplant better than the futur victims ? They deserve to live more than the futur victims ? Based on what criteria ?
If the killer wants to save lives so much, why doesn’t he sacrifice himself?
Maybe you should write a book about it !
Wrong. Very wrong.
It is not yours to subtract lives from one another.
That persons? No, almost certainly not.
We do, however, have people who have the job of doing so.
Doctor’s and first responders, in times when there are more patients requiring immediate attention than there are resources available for all of them, literally do life arithmetic.
The algorithm we’ve decided on prioritizes likelihood of survival over quantity of survival in cases with low information, like a plane crash or an explosion.
Only a few years ago we had a national incident that required decisions about who to kill to be made rather often, specifically regarding ventilators.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2005689
The way I read it is that the killer had no prior knowledge of the victim’s organ donor status. It sounds to me like a killer retroactively trying to justify their actions.