| A (horrible) Question of Ethics |
by Illiad |
2008-04-28 08:51:02 |
| You're a pediatrician. Two newborns contract a nasty virus. There are two vaccines available for the virus but only one will work due to some unknown factors, and you can't tell which one. You have enough time to apply one vaccine -- they take a couple of hours to take effect -- and if you choose the wrong vaccine(or do nothing) the baby will die.
Solely within this context, which is more the ethical (not practical!) solution:
- Give both babies the same vaccine: you'll either save both or lose both.
- Give one vaccine to one baby and the other to the other baby: you'll definitely save one but definitely lose one too.
This really horrid dilemma brought to you by an early episode of House. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Talk to the parents | by imrambi | 2008-04-28 08:54:18 |
|
They can't make up their mind. | by Illiad | 2008-04-28 08:58:07 |
|
that's why I'm not a doctor. | by aprylmae | 2008-04-28 09:00:32 |
|
This is why I refused to become a mod... | by RetiQlum2 | 2008-04-28 09:13:20 |
|
"Severely cause someone pemanent harm"??? | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 10:04:32 |
|
Given some of the fragile egos/psyches here | by esbita | 2008-04-28 10:53:55 |
|
Sure, take the fun out of the exercise | by imrambi | 2008-04-28 09:20:37 |
|
no that is incorrect | by roadhog | 2008-04-28 16:44:10 |
|
I second that | by FST777 | 2008-04-28 17:58:17 |
|
Second thought: | by FST777 | 2008-04-28 18:11:36 |
|
let the parents decide. | by aprylmae | 2008-04-28 08:56:16 |
|
See my reply to imrambi. (n/t) | by Illiad | 2008-04-28 08:58:28 |
|
#2. | by esbita | 2008-04-28 09:00:44 |
|
#2 | by Control | 2008-04-28 09:02:59 |
|
But then you have to explain to the parents | by aprylmae | 2008-04-28 09:18:27 |
|
Perhaps you do | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 09:26:53 |
|
imagine the kids were old enough to understand | by aprylmae | 2008-04-28 09:35:21 |
|
Why would you regret your decision? | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 09:39:26 |
|
I can't see how either decision | by aprylmae | 2008-04-28 09:41:49 |
|
You can explain it this way: | by esbita | 2008-04-28 10:00:53 |
|
If you have enough to have 1 as an option | by psychoi3oy | 2008-04-28 09:04:46 |
|
The vaccines... | by Illiad | 2008-04-28 09:06:31 |
|
Think outside the box: | by RetiQlum2 | 2008-04-28 09:07:59 |
|
See Illiad's reply | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 09:11:24 |
|
No. | by Illiad | 2008-04-28 09:11:52 |
|
Think inside reality, tho'. | by Discarnate | 2008-04-28 09:14:43 |
|
some vaccines can be protective after exposure | by morenna | 2008-04-28 09:24:39 |
|
SSLR? | by Discarnate | 2008-04-28 09:33:25 |
|
short subject line rant. | by morenna | 2008-04-28 09:46:31 |
|
*chuckle* | by Discarnate | 2008-04-28 09:58:18 |
|
you're welcome! you should also make a user diary | by morenna | 2008-04-28 10:04:02 |
|
done! (n/r) (n/t) | by Discarnate | 2008-04-28 10:09:07 |
|
Rabies comes up as an example (n/t) | by FST777 | 2008-04-28 18:15:30 |
|
*WOOOSH* (n/t) | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 09:52:29 |
|
#2, unless some insight gained during clinic duty | by toysbfun | 2008-04-28 09:10:10 |
|
How a physician would handle it IRL: | by dire_lobo | 2008-04-28 09:12:31 |
|
*wry grin* | by Discarnate | 2008-04-28 09:17:07 |
|
All somewhat tongue-in-cheek kidding aside, that's | by dire_lobo | 2008-04-28 09:31:21 |
|
I agree.... | by Discarnate | 2008-04-28 09:37:14 |
|
*both* decisions are the same. | by perlcat45 | 2008-04-28 09:13:12 |
|
They're not the same | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 09:16:05 |
|
Exactly. (n/t) | by esbita | 2008-04-28 09:17:15 |
|
I disagree. | by Pic | 2008-04-28 09:29:09 |
|
"Certainty that either..." | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 09:42:41 |
|
"ethics isn't about numbers or probability." | by perlcat45 | 2008-04-28 10:18:05 |
|
What do you mean by | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 10:19:56 |
|
You're in the game of probabilty | by perlcat45 | 2008-04-28 10:28:13 |
|
I don't follow | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 10:33:05 |
|
Thank $deity you aren't my doctor.(n/t) | by perlcat45 | 2008-04-28 10:36:26 |
|
Whether a decision is right or wrong | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 10:41:31 |
|
I do believe Solomon answered that qn | by perlcat45 | 2008-04-28 10:49:06 |
|
I believe that the question Solomon answered | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 10:56:24 |
|
That is a highly unfair question to ask parents. | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 10:48:17 |
|
You don't ask them. | by perlcat45 | 2008-04-28 10:53:22 |
|
How will explain the situation change it? | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 10:55:48 |
|
Again, the situation is that: | by perlcat45 | 2008-04-28 11:07:28 |
|
What, exactly, is the "RNG"? | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 11:22:38 |
|
Play nethack sometime | by perlcat45 | 2008-04-28 11:33:37 |
|
What random number generator? | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 12:00:53 |
|
omnipotent is as omnipotent does | by perlcat45 | 2008-04-28 12:03:43 |
|
True; | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 12:08:23 |
|
I still don't see how it was not in your hands (n/ (n/t) | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 10:57:11 |
|
Responses: | by Nath3 | 2008-04-28 11:36:35 |
|
In real life, you're correct | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 11:42:20 |
|
I answered elsewhere in the thread: | by Nath3 | 2008-04-28 13:43:14 |
|
I read that, | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 14:01:37 |
|
I disagree | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 11:59:11 |
|
Matter of trust. | by perlcat45 | 2008-04-28 13:08:59 |
|
Which is exactly why it's unfair to present the | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 13:16:38 |
|
I doubt I'll convince you, but... | by Nath3 | 2008-04-28 13:40:47 |
|
but this isn't that situation. | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 13:51:01 |
|
But they do have different goals. | by Nath3 | 2008-04-28 14:12:58 |
|
It's still just passing the buck. | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 14:15:40 |
|
Is it passing the buck... | by Nath3 | 2008-04-28 14:22:11 |
|
Yes, it is. | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 14:53:58 |
|
I fear I'm repeating myself. | by Nath3 | 2008-04-28 15:03:54 |
|
Why? | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 15:06:06 |
|
But that *isn't* the only difference. | by Nath3 | 2008-04-28 15:09:11 |
|
And who in their right mind | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 15:25:34 |
|
That isn't the scenario described in the OP. | by Nath3 | 2008-04-28 15:30:46 |
|
I guess we're going to have to disagree on that :) (n/t) | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 15:39:41 |
|
I guess so. | by Nath3 | 2008-04-28 15:52:27 |
|
Saved at the cost of another life? | by FST777 | 2008-04-28 18:25:03 |
|
ethics isn't about ... probability?!?! Yes, it is. | by dire_lobo | 2008-04-28 10:22:06 |
|
Certainty of what? | by perlcat45 | 2008-04-28 09:31:43 |
|
Whether a situation is unwinnable | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 09:37:43 |
|
It's not more ethical | by perlcat45 | 2008-04-28 10:11:36 |
|
In other words, | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 10:24:37 |
|
I agree with you; see my answer to the TLP | by romandas | 2008-04-28 12:36:48 |
|
*cough*kobiyashimaru*cough* (n/t) | by Phoon | 2008-04-28 09:43:11 |
|
What about research? | by testy | 2008-04-28 09:21:17 |
|
Same thing he did, for the same reasons. | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 09:25:22 |
|
I haven't seen it. What did he do? ;-) (n/t) | by aix tom | 2008-04-28 09:39:00 |
|
Gave different one to each, knowing one would die (n/t) | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 09:44:02 |
|
with the result that he now knew which was the | by Snate | 2008-04-28 10:21:18 |
|
Irrelevant though. | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 10:22:54 |
|
True, but I was expanding on aix tom's question of | by Snate | 2008-04-28 11:09:40 |
|
When you say you have enough time to use only one | by mutt | 2008-04-28 09:36:27 |
|
Since : | by aix tom | 2008-04-28 09:37:38 |
|
What does logic or probability | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 09:41:01 |
|
Ah, contrived dilemmas. | by Didactylos | 2008-04-28 09:45:55 |
|
That, however, isn't the point of the dilemma (n/t) | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 09:48:39 |
|
All ethical "what ifs" | by Didactylos | 2008-04-28 09:54:26 |
|
Don't ever take a 3rd-year philosophy course. | by Illiad | 2008-04-28 09:57:25 |
|
I dunno... | by Discarnate | 2008-04-28 10:13:02 |
|
And yet ... here you are ... | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 09:59:28 |
|
Depends on your definition | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 10:02:58 |
|
It's a false dilemma because | by Didactylos | 2008-04-28 11:36:02 |
|
The problem is | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 12:06:33 |
|
interesting discussion and... | by dire_lobo | 2008-04-28 10:13:59 |
|
Ah, pointless snark. | by kelli217 | 2008-04-28 10:30:15 |
|
Here, have a fluffy pink bunny. | by Didactylos | 2008-04-28 11:39:46 |
|
Pick the oldest batch and give that. | by tallastro | 2008-04-28 09:59:40 |
|
I thought a vaccine is only effective BEFORE you | by voxwoman | 2008-04-28 09:59:42 |
|
some are protective after exposure, | by morenna | 2008-04-28 10:08:45 |
|
Definitely #2. | by Peace_man | 2008-04-28 10:00:27 |
|
buit you will also definitely kill one of them (n/t) | by aprylmae | 2008-04-28 10:33:23 |
|
It's still more responsible IMO (n/t) | by hobbs | 2008-04-28 10:43:51 |
|
Actually, doing nothing is what will most | by Peace_man | 2008-04-28 11:01:13 |
|
I never said it shouldn't be | by aprylmae | 2008-04-28 11:40:42 |
|
flip a coin for each baby. take a shoot of wiskey. (n/t) | by Woodburn | 2008-04-28 10:03:34 |
|
Don't take a shot of whiskey | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 10:28:16 |
|
chances are very slim of the doctor having access | by aprylmae | 2008-04-28 10:26:58 |
|
Hippocratic oath | by perlcat45 | 2008-04-28 10:46:55 |
|
You do realise that | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 10:51:42 |
|
Yes, I do. | by perlcat45 | 2008-04-28 10:55:38 |
|
You have a 50% chance of violating the that clause | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 11:06:15 |
|
The oath is absolute. | by perlcat45 | 2008-04-28 11:25:32 |
|
In that case, every oncologist and such | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 11:31:33 |
|
...after the "first do no harm" bit | by perlcat45 | 2008-04-28 11:42:50 |
|
But you did not knowingly kill your patient | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 12:09:26 |
|
Triage is always hard for that reason. | by perlcat45 | 2008-04-28 12:23:58 |
|
Which is the point of the exercise: | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 12:37:53 |
|
I was kind of leaning towards #1. | by vampire | 2008-04-28 10:59:52 |
|
That assumes | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 11:00:43 |
|
Hippocratic oath has no bearing - it is not | by Peace_man | 2008-04-28 11:13:57 |
|
You can't have half-an-oath | by perlcat45 | 2008-04-28 11:51:28 |
|
And here I thought you were arguing | by Peace_man | 2008-04-28 12:00:41 |
|
Nope. | by perlcat45 | 2008-04-28 12:13:28 |
|
Not my call. | by Nath3 | 2008-04-28 10:51:12 |
|
Very much your call. | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 10:53:51 |
|
I'd say that as a doctor | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 11:01:57 |
|
I agree. That's why I referred to myself as... | by Nath3 | 2008-04-28 11:37:38 |
|
Which violates the terms of the question: | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 11:39:55 |
|
A doctor can be undoctorly. :) (n/t) | by Nath3 | 2008-04-28 13:44:02 |
|
I would have to try for the 'win' with choice 1 | by romandas | 2008-04-28 11:51:03 |
|
You would not be killing a child. | by Peace_man | 2008-04-28 11:58:31 |
|
Yes | by romandas | 2008-04-28 12:11:07 |
|
Actually, I'm now leaning | by MatthewDBA | 2008-04-28 12:15:58 |
|
Unless I missed it, what was your choice, Illiad? (n/t) | by romandas | 2008-04-28 12:18:12 |
|
The same choice you made. | by Illiad | 2008-04-28 12:49:56 |
|
One further aspect (dismal legalities) | by run.dll | 2008-04-28 15:02:42 |
|
That's a matter for the hospitals lawyers though | by subbywan | 2008-04-28 15:04:07 |
|
I would say it is a factor. | by run.dll | 2008-04-28 15:38:27 |
|
Okay - the vaccines "don't intermix well" - | by DrDeisel | 2008-04-28 13:06:24 |
|
They would kill the child. | by Illiad | 2008-04-28 13:08:25 |
