If you had to choose, who would you save?
Question:
-a 34 year old married woman, 2 elementry children, stays at home, active member of the community
-a 16 year old boy, music major, full ride scholarship to college
- a 41 year old male, married, Criminal justice lawyer who donates to hospital
- 36 year old woman, married, no children, CEO of firm.
- 39 year old single woman, teenaged children, housekeeper at hotel, volunteers at soup kitchen weekly.
As the board you have to decide who to save first, second, so on. Who would you save and in what order?
Answer:
Any method chosen would be discretion used by me, the basis for which I may not be able to justify to the satisfaction of everyone.
I'll go by first come, first serve, as is the normally accepted principle. If that is ruled out, I'll draw lots.
More importantly, I'll also look for possible alternatives like another hospital or treatment for those who remain unattended.
First come, first to use dialysis.
1 single mom
2 16 year old
3 married mom
4 woman ceo
5 man
1. 36 year old single woman who is CEO because if she is saved she can give employment to other people.
2. 16 years old boy because he has his future ahead.
3. 39 year old single woman because she is volunteer at soupd kitchen
4. 41 year old male because she has his wife behind
5. 34 year old woman at the last because she is married and her husband is there to take care of kids.
1)The 16 yr old boy, after all he has a full life to live
2) The single mom, no one else to take care of her kids
3)The married woman with small children
4) The 41 yr old that donates to hospital
5) The ceo
First the 16 year old, second 34 year old, third 39 year old, fourth
34 year old and last the 36 year old.
its difficult issent? well first come first serve is the best option i think. but another thing to look at is how severe are each? the one whose dying should get a chance.its not right to chose who will live or die. you cant choose who you want to save...go by who need it the most..
Since there is a choice, contrary to a justified procedure of first come first basis etc...
16 year old boy,
the CEO,
39 YEAR OLD Woman,
41 yr old Lawyer,
34 yr old woman.
41 year old male, married, Criminal justice lawyer who donates to hospital--can buy more machines with donations.
16 year old boy, music major, full ride scholarship to college--can become a teacher of music.
34 year old married woman, 2 elementry children, stays at home, active member of the community--may become more active in politics to better her hometown.
39 year old single woman, teenaged children, housekeeper at hotel, volunteers at soup kitchen weekly--compassion
36 year old woman, married, no children, CEO of firm--can always pay to go somewhere else...not to mention she would probably retire and waste away.
If I'm on the board, I'm most interested in who will pay their bills. Without any information on who is best insured, I'd pick the CEO.
All cynicism aside:
- 16 year old boy first; he has the most to lose
- the mother of two next; they have the next most to lose
- the 39 year old single woman, her kids have the next most to lose
The CEO and the lawyer can fight to the death for the right to be saved.
The boy and the lightest women. I cannot rescue or not rescue someone, say, on the basis of their having children. The argument of saving women and children first is traditional, though. Last thing I would do is rescue an old person or a sick person. I would favour someone with a mental illness or disability.
As far as having kids, you aren't 'better' and who would I choose? Do I pick the one with younger kids over the one with older kids? Do I pick the one with three over the one with two? What if the woman is a lousy mother? What if the kids are grown-up? Are you more entitled if you are a housewife, career women or single mother? By how much you or your husband make? It would be an endless and futile argument. Do I save the teenage mother on welfare before the 35-year-old who is pregnant and planning on having more children?
I'd reserve my right to change my mind as my guardian angel directed, but absent other rules of triage, I'd go with first come first serve. Rules of triage may say one patient could tolerate waiting longer than another. One person may wish to yield his/her place, out of love, to another, and I'd honor this. I would ignore age, gender, or station in life. If God doesn't care, why should I? Oh, if a criminal-mass-murderer who has already cost the world much suffering, like some of the thugs in Washington, showed up, I'd tell them to wait - even if I got fired - as my gift to humanity!
1st 16
2nd 34
3rd 36
4th 39
5th 41
1) 41 year old: he is the oldest and probably most at risk. also his work in criminal justice and donations to the hospital probably have a greater social impact than the work of any of the others. Without the CEO, people will still be hired by that company, without the soup kitchen worker, the homeless are not going to starve. The lawyer and especially his charitable giving, are less "replacable."
2)16 year old: he has the most life ahead of him.
The others stand out less from each other. They are all closer to the same age, and seem to make similar social contribtions. A big factor in an utilitarian calculation would be what firm the CEO works for. If the woman is responsible for steering a major corporation towards being very socially conscious and improving the lives of many, then in this situation her life might be the most "valuable." Simply going on the basis of her being a CEO, i don't see her standing out from the other two. So for them, it would be first come, first serve.
People have dialisis 3 times a week. So I would prolong all of their lives by making a schedule.
<br>I think I get your questions, answer number 2, I would refer them to another hospital.
<br>The question is kind of weak.
1.16 old boy<<because he has to live his life,not a right time to die
2. 39 year old. for the kidsbecause ther eis no one to take care of them,,just her.
3.34 old married woman with 2 elementary children<<becuase the kids need their mom the most at this young age.
4.41 yr old married man needs to take care of his family and kids.
5. 36 yr old ceo,,seems like she will die happy,since she has acomplised so much..n doesnt seem like she is more goal oriented than family oriented,,,seems selfish.
being that I am not a responsible person. I don't think you would want me making such a decision. I would probably kill everybody in the process by accident, if you know what I mean.
Ethics questions are the most difficult.
I would save the 34 year old woman with the 2 elementary school students first.
The reason being that there are two young children who depend upon her for necessities. She is obviously the primary care giver in the family. Her death would effect 2 young lives and would also effect her husband's ability to perform his duties at work, creating problems in the work place and at home.
The second person I would save is the 39 year old house keeper with the teenagers.
She is a single woman with teenage children who are at a crucial stage of their emotional development. They are older than the first choice's children, that is why she is my second pick.
The third person would be the 41 year old Male lawyer.
The only reason he beats out the female CEO is because of his contributions to the community.
The fourth person is the 36 year old female CEO.
Her death could adversely effect her husband's income and the performance of the company that she heads.
Unfortunately I would have to make the 16 year old boy my last choice.
His death would be devastating for his family, however, no one depends on him for their welfare.
1)16yr old boy ( has a future)
2)) 34 yr old mom of 2 (small kids))
3)39 yr old (only sourse of income and support for two maturing adults)
4)36 yr old (have a loving husband who needs her)
5)41 yr old (for the donation , seriously am on the board )
my priiorities would be as follows
Highest priority mentioned first :
1. 39 year old single woman, teenaged children, housekeeper at hotel, volunteers at soup kitchen weekly.
2. a 34 year old married woman, 2 elementry children, stays at home, active member of the community
3. 16 year old boy, music major, full ride scholarship to college
4. 36 year old woman, married, no children, CEO of firm.
5. a 41 year old male, married, Criminal justice lawyer who donates to hospital
I would inform the other members of the board that i had laid ready a priority list and was going to execute it. but in fact, i would secretly go and destroy the 2 dialysis machines. then, would convene the 5 patients in a meeting and talk about such things as humanity and selflessness, destiny and hard luck. Then, I would tell them that I had just bust the 2 machines and that they were gonna die, explaining that it was better and fairer to all that way.
Anyway, i am a bad judge and decision maker.
or perhaps deeply compassionate to all living things to such an extent that i would prefer humanity dies out, including me, than having to spell the death a few individuals to save the rest.
but back to the hospital situation, on second thoughts, after that momentous meeting, do I have the right to live?
In any case, nothing prevents the 2 males beating me to death on the spot. or choosing another hospital with a healthy set of dialysis machines, for that matter. :-) just musing!
well,
Normally, order by who came first.
If in not normal condition [like the came together] I'll let them decide who first if they can't, I'll pick them for random sequence.
I would have to say that brandyniz gave the correct answer "first come first served".
Otherwise it would be unfair to all the people on the list.
More Questions & Answers...