John Harris, the Survival Lottery
John Harris, The Survival Lottery
John Harris suggested us that there could happened situations in witch the rational thing to do would be killing a healthy person and take his organs to transplants. We can sacrifice one person to save people. „The Survival Theory” shows two sick people who needs organ transplant for saving their lives. Patient Y needs a heart and patient Z needs lugs. If a recently deceased person were a donor, Y and Z can be saved. Y and Z ask: Why don't we just kill a suitable donor? The medical procedures to save Y and Z are available, and in other medical treatments, a doctor's failure to provide the service would be regarded as equivalent to killing the two patients. So, by not killing an innocent "donor" for the necessary heart and lungs, the doctor chooses to kill Y and Z. Harris gives two objections to killing one person to save two people. First, a doctor's choice of whom to kill will be arbitrary. It is simply not fair to the innocent person who is killed. Author also added that it will create „terror and distress to the victims, the witnesses, and society generally." But we can set up a rule that removes these problems, and then the benefits will outweigh the „costs." The Survival Lottery says: Put everyone at equal risk of being sacrificed (for instance: use a computer to select someone at random from the population of compatible organ donors) and make sure that everyone becomes aware that their own chances of living are increased by this plan. Organ donation will no longer depend on the few people who become organ donors, and the many people who now die- can live. Those who object to being chosen in the lottery would be classified as murderers. Inter-planetary travel example: If we were able to observe this process in practice (on another planet), how could we object to it? Our current procedure would seem crueler to them than theirs does to us. He showed objections to the Lottery:
-It reduces our security.
-We
John Harris suggested us that there could happened situations in witch the rational thing to do would be killing a healthy person and take his organs to transplants. We can sacrifice one person to save people. „The Survival Theory” shows two sick people who needs organ transplant for saving their lives. Patient Y needs a heart and patient Z needs lugs. If a recently deceased person were a donor, Y and Z can be saved. Y and Z ask: Why don't we just kill a suitable donor? The medical procedures to save Y and Z are available, and in other medical treatments, a doctor's failure to provide the service would be regarded as equivalent to killing the two patients. So, by not killing an innocent "donor" for the necessary heart and lungs, the doctor chooses to kill Y and Z. Harris gives two objections to killing one person to save two people. First, a doctor's choice of whom to kill will be arbitrary. It is simply not fair to the innocent person who is killed. Author also added that it will create „terror and distress to the victims, the witnesses, and society generally." But we can set up a rule that removes these problems, and then the benefits will outweigh the „costs." The Survival Lottery says: Put everyone at equal risk of being sacrificed (for instance: use a computer to select someone at random from the population of compatible organ donors) and make sure that everyone becomes aware that their own chances of living are increased by this plan. Organ donation will no longer depend on the few people who become organ donors, and the many people who now die- can live. Those who object to being chosen in the lottery would be classified as murderers. Inter-planetary travel example: If we were able to observe this process in practice (on another planet), how could we object to it? Our current procedure would seem crueler to them than theirs does to us. He showed objections to the Lottery:
-It reduces our security.
-We