This would be for the parents to decide, not the doctor. I don't care if they are 'unable to decide'; I'd tell them that if they don't pick one, I'd do neither. And then I'd go looking for a third option.
But I doubt you were asking what I'd really do; this is a hypothetical exercise. If I absolutely had to pick one of the two, I guess I'd go with option 2.
It's a tricky call, and not as simple as it seems from a decision theory point of view. It depends on whether you are considering the patients' best interests or the parents'.
For the parents, I'd say option 2 is better. The horror of losing both kids would probably outweigh any of the other possibilities.
For the patients, I'd say option 1 is better. They have a 50% chance of dying either way, but in option 1, if they survive, they get a free sibling.
I think I'd hold the priorities of the parents (sapient beings) above those of the patients in this case. Quite an undoctorly thing to do, but I'm not a doctor. |
