Ethics/Theory Question

B

BRUTALITOPS

on indefiniate mod break
Contributor
Lets say you are in a car accident. You wake up in the hospital, and the person you were in the accident with (lets say from another car) is stitched up with you. Siamese twin style. The doctors made a quick decision to save this mans life and rerouted some of your arteries and blood vessels and kidneys to help him live. (I know this is unrealistic, merely theoretical, just go with me on this).

Basically his heart is all fucked up and they need to borrow some of your own blood and heart pumping and bodily functions to help this guy. If they disconnect the two of you, you'll live and be fine, but he'll die. They need a few months until they can help repair his heart and find new organs.

So the question is:

Is this unethical?
Should you have the right to separate from this man if you want, knowing he'll die, but if you just tough it out for a few months he'll be ok?

Does this situation change if you were the one that caused the accident? What about if he was the one that caused the accident?

Thoughts?
 
Doppelganger said:
Lets say you are in a car accident. You wake up in the hospital, and the person you were in the accident with (lets say from another car) is stitched up with you. Siamese twin style. The doctors made a quick decision to save this mans life and rerouted some of your arteries and blood vessels and kidneys to help him live. (I know this is unrealistic, merely theoretical, just go with me on this).

Basically his heart is all fucked up and they need to borrow some of your own blood and heart pumping and bodily functions to help this guy. If they disconnect the two of you, you'll live and be fine, but he'll die. They need a few months until they can help repair his heart and find new organs.

So the question is:

Is this unethical?
Should you have the right to separate from this man if you want, knowing he'll die, but if you just tough it out for a few months he'll be ok?

Does this situation change if you were the one that caused the accident? What about if he was the one that caused the accident?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

It was unethical for them to stitch you together in the first place. I, personally, would let the poor person stay connected until they recovered. I would feel even more obligated to do so if I had caused the accident.

I would expect my care to be free because the hospital did not seek my permission to attach the other person to my person for their survival.
 
Sardonic said:
It was unethical for them to stitch you together in the first place. I, personally, would let the poor person stay connected until they recovered. I would feel even more obligated to do so if I had caused the accident.

I would expect my care to be free because the hospital did not seek my permission to attach the other person to my person for their survival.
Click to expand...

should you have a right to disconnect if you desired? or should such a situation not be allowed ?
 
Doppelganger said:
should you have a right to disconnect if you desired? or should such a situation not be allowed ?
Click to expand...

You should be allowed to disconnect if you liked.

I would also not allow it to continue indefinitely. I would need to know the time constraint. I could do it for months, but not years. I am also thinking from a 58 year old perspective. If I were younger with children, I might not be as willing.
 
Doppelganger said:
Lets say you are in a car accident. You wake up in the hospital, and the person you were in the accident with (lets say from another car) is stitched up with you. Siamese twin style. The doctors made a quick decision to save this mans life and rerouted some of your arteries and blood vessels and kidneys to help him live. (I know this is unrealistic, merely theoretical, just go with me on this).

Basically his heart is all fucked up and they need to borrow some of your own blood and heart pumping and bodily functions to help this guy. If they disconnect the two of you, you'll live and be fine, but he'll die. They need a few months until they can help repair his heart and find new organs.

So the question is:

Is this unethical?
Should you have the right to separate from this man if you want, knowing he'll die, but if you just tough it out for a few months he'll be ok?

Does this situation change if you were the one that caused the accident? What about if he was the one that caused the accident?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

While there might be a slim margin of someone arguing the moral issue, it's not ethical.
For one; they never asked for your consent to do the procedure.
And yes, they don't wait to ask if someone is unconscious and they have to preform a procedure to save your life; but this isn't about your life.
It's deeper then just this simple reply; but is someone wants to argu the nuances, then let's go for it.
 
Doppelganger said:
should you have a right to disconnect if you desired? or should such a situation not be allowed ?
Click to expand...

Yes you should have the right.
They made a decision about the other person and involved you, without your permission.
I get the feeling that you're going somewhere else, with these questions. :dunno:
 
Grind needs a hobby. I live ethical questions, but shouldn't they have to have some basis in reality? It is easier to think Desh is sane than think something like this could be remotely plausible. I know you qualified it but come on. It isn't even medically possible let alone medically ethical
 
yeah ILA but still, if you were in that situation, do you think you should have the right to disconnect?
 
Doppelganger said:
yeah ILA but still, if you were in that situation, do you think you should have the right to disconnect?
Click to expand...

Again it is a fallacious argument. It is medically impossible to do, so anyone's answer has no more basis in reality than your question.

Now if this is some kind of strawman to back into an abortion argument, it is cute but not remotely relevant.
 
Doppelganger said:
Lets say you are in a car accident. You wake up in the hospital, and the person you were in the accident with (lets say from another car) is stitched up with you. Siamese twin style. The doctors made a quick decision to save this mans life and rerouted some of your arteries and blood vessels and kidneys to help him live. (I know this is unrealistic, merely theoretical, just go with me on this).

Basically his heart is all fucked up and they need to borrow some of your own blood and heart pumping and bodily functions to help this guy. If they disconnect the two of you, you'll live and be fine, but he'll die. They need a few months until they can help repair his heart and find new organs.

So the question is:

Is this unethical?
Should you have the right to separate from this man if you want, knowing he'll die, but if you just tough it out for a few months he'll be ok?

Does this situation change if you were the one that caused the accident? What about if he was the one that caused the accident?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Can I have some of what you're smoking?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top