Should we kill healthy people for thier organs?

Four philosophical questions to make your brain hurt

It's World Philosophy Day - an opportunity to contemplate one's very existence and whether computer monitors really exist.

So, with World Philosophy Day upon us, here are some pesky arguments to apply your minds to:

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok painlessly to kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not?

Consider another case: you and six others are kidnapped, and the kidnapper somehow persuades you that if you shoot dead one of the other hostages, he will set the remaining five free, whereas if you do not, he will shoot all six. (Either way, he'll release you.)

If in this case you should kill one to save five, why not in the previous, organs case? If in this case too you have qualms, consider yet another: you're in the cab of a runaway tram and see five people tied to the track ahead. You have the option of sending the tram on to the track forking off to the left, on which only one person is tied. Surely you should send the tram left, killing one to save five.

But then why not kill Bill?

The rest of the interesting article and questions.news.bbc.co.uk...

Enjoy, i sure did

[edit on 20-11-2008 by rixhell]

Mod Edit: Fixed ALL CAPS TITLE

[edit on 11/20/08 by FredT]

Originally posted by rixhell
SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

Yes.

Chop him up and harvest him immediately.

I find more than a little creepy that this is coming out a country that is finding it difficult to pay for its healthcare system.

Save money and cut costs with eugenics.

Depends if we like them.

If it were my ex mother-in-law, I'm voting 'take what you need and don't bother leaving the rest'.



Really though, I think that it is somewhat barbaric.

No we shouldnt kill healthy people, but donating organs after death should be compulsary not voluntary.

reply to post by Solomons


Right, so some self-righteous doctor can just not try hard enough to save your life when there's a little girl across town in need of a liver.

As a voluntary program there is plenty of shady goings on. Mandating would open the door to even more abuses.

Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok painlessly to kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not?

reply to post by rixhell


I realize that I am responding to your posts words and not to you.

Who the hell dictates for that man that he has or has not worth based upon whether or not he has family or loved ones???????

So, I would say, suppose not. And who are these 5 other people. Piss on em--that is thier lifes journey. But we can save 5--who the hell cares-it's not their business.

For that matter, why not raise your own parts? Then arrainge to off them when your too old, make sure you adopt a comparable donor and utilize the government and religious loopholes to conceal this fact.
It just takes a doctor's word.

whew* touched on a sore spot you did.

All is fair in Love, War, and the pursuit of immortality. I think that immoral scientific people will decide that organ-harvesting from "healthy" clones is allowed by the Laws of Physics.

I think the real question isn't "should we kill healthy people for their organs?", its "do we kill healthy people for their organs?" There are quite a few medical conspiracies out there, and this is a conspiracy website, after all.

But to answer the thought experiment expressed in the OP, I think comparing the natural fates of five sick people and one healthy organ donor to the unnatural fates of a kidnapping/murder situation is like comparing apples to oranges.

However, if I was in the situation with the kidnapper, I would agree with his plan, get the gun, shoot the kidnapper, and let all 6 people go. Problem solved.

OK, yes.. the article had me thinking so much it did make the old brain ache.

I am generally not into killing anyone, organs or no organs. Not because i am of any certain religion, just the way i feel about it. Regardless of whether Bill has loved ones, he has a life. Who am I , or anyone to decide that we need to harvest his organs and that he is dispensable ? Will the lines get blurred? What if someone has family.. but they cant stand him/her?

You did make me think about death row inmates in prison though.. (Shame on me) Would it be cheaper and more beneficial to society to take their organs once they are done with their zillionth appeal? Would anyone want the organs of a convicted * insert crime here *?? Cell memory theories and all that..

Interesting topic to say the least.. and ty for firing up my brain cells .

I think people with hereditary diseases(incl. those hat affect organs) shouldn't be helped at all.

It makes no sense that someone healthy should die so people who degrade the gene pool are allowed to live and reproduce.

Hmmmmmm............no. I wouldn't agree to kill some healthy person so that others could live with that healthy person's organs. It just doesn't seem ethical to me.

As for the kidnap situation. Yes, I would kill someone to save the others, in this case. I would choose to try to kill the kidnapper.

I see how these situations seem similar and I see differences in them. If I couldn't kill the kidnapper, then I would let fate follow it's course. That's just the way I am.

SugarJ. I had a kidney transplant 12 1/2 years ago. I received a kidney from one of my living sisters. Interesting about the cell memories. Up to the time I had the transplant I was a devout beer drinker, while my sister was a Jim Beam fan. After the transplant I no longer liked beer, but I began to enjoy the taste of Jim Beam. Hmmmmmm.........But since that time my sister has gone on to another favorite brand of bourbon, which is cheaper that has a taste that I can't stand. My cells do not have my sister's memories from after the transplant, so I have not changed my taste to suite my sister's taste of bourbon. This change she experienced is based on economics and I am in a different economic situation than she is.

Just my 2.52 cents worth.

No No No No No No No

Its really that simple. It not even a slippery ethic slope. You do this and your already at the bottom IMHO. Its only a matter of time before you start killing people because they have abirth defect, or are too old, etc etc etc

I'm sure its already being done. thousands disappear without a trace each year across the planet.

I think it's probably a better idea to keep people alive for their organs, rather than kill them. We still don't have the technology (although we're working on it) to grow organs in a test tube, so the only way to keep organs nice and fresh and ready for transplant is to keep the people alive who will be donating them.

Otherwise, I think that in the next hundred years or so we will figure out how to build artificial organs that will replace pretty much everything but the brain. So the quandary is only temporary.

Just don't be healthy and pass out on a bench at the same time in India.......

So do the 5 people have health problems they were born with, or are they all the results of not taking care of themselves properly?

I have a friend in the Organ Percurment field that would not be too happy to see this thread.

If the people who are passing on would donate more, you wouldn't have to worry about taking healthy ones. Not that you have anyhting to worry about now.

save7lives.org...

Education is the key. There is NO reason to have to feel like you HAVE to be a donor. But as most donors admit... "I don't need them anymore."

Please for the sake of all those who have died and helped another see many other years... Don't continue this thread.

I once listened to an old man who had been a WW2 submarine commander.
He needed to tell the story of the time his sub had been hit and he had to seal part of it off to protect the rest. Sealing it off meant drowning some of his own crew. In his quiet words it tore the heart out of him. He continued through his life bravely, but lived with this pain constantly.

Finally, in his eighties, he could tell someone and cry for those boys he'd had to kill.

Anyone who can debate the question of sacrificing some for the greater good, without knowing that pain, still has a lot to learn.

Plus get your facts right thisguyrighthere Britain has no problem paying for the national health service. We live in a welfare state that for good or bad provides for its sick and needy. If you want to slam other countrys look at Michael Moores Sicko then pass judgement. The quesion was raised due to world Philosophy Day you deuche not to try and suggest some cost cutting policies