Would you save a mentally disabled child or a normal child?

Question

IF you had to choose to save someone, and because of the circumstances you can only save one, a mentally disabled child in a wheelchair or a normal child? The same age.

You can't choose both. Pick one.

Gee, can't even pick one.

It's an IF question!

Answer 1

THIS IS A TRICK QUESTION -- and everyone above fell for it!!!

As the father of four children, and having observed them, their friends, and their classmates, I can absolutely assure you --

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A NORMAL CHILD.

Therefore, the only child left in your hypothetical is the disabled child, I would save him.

Answer 2

I agree with all the sane, intelligent people: the normal one.

If you read the question, you CANNOT save both. There are a million situations where this could be true, so pick one. Like, "A bomb is about to go off, you have 20 seconds to carry one child to a safe distance. They are too heavy to carry both. There are also obsticals in the way, so you can't simply wheel the disabled child out."

So you want to ask yourself "who will benefit most from being saved." I believe in deontological ethics, and say you should try to create the most good without harming another, if possible. You may not like this situation, but it happens. I believe the normal child will benefit the most from being saved.

He will have a better life experience. I don't know if I could live as a disabled person. I definitely wouldn't want to be in a coma for the rest of my life, waiting to die and join whatever afterlife there may be. That said, the disable child may not even remember the event in the future, and such an event probably wouldn't change anything in his life. He wouldn't appreciate life more (because he probably doesn't know how to).

The normal child will probably be more compassionate towards those in need, and will be more able to help them.

P.S. For all those who are still angry about this question, just remember it is nothing like "If you could harvest the organs of a disabled child, would you kill him to save a normal child." To this I would answer NO. It would be a violation of rights (according to Deontological Ethics). It would be CREATING a wrong in order to create a good.

Answer 3

I don’t think the asker necessarily meant to offend. It’s an interesting and controversial question. However, I am appalled at so many answers on here that state they would save the normal child because they will have a future. I take this very personally and right now I’m kinda ticked off. I am the parent of a mentally challenged child & 3 more normal children. For those of you who say that a disabled child is any less valuable than a normal child, you DISGUST me. Your ignorance of the mentally-challenged is astounding, in this age of information. I have learned more from my mentally-disabled child than I have ever learned from anyone else. My little girl doesn't care about a person's color, money, social class, or if somebody is 'ugly' or different. What she does care about is a person’s actions, whether or not someone is a good person & is good to her. The mentally disabled will teach you patience, tolerance for others & unconditional love, just to name a few. I am sickened by those who think the disabled have no feelings or thoughts. We meet those people all the time, in the grocery store, at school, the movies…it’s sad. My daughter is not in a wheelchair; in fact she looks “normal” when you first meet her. I can’t count the times people have tried to talk to her & when I have to explain she cannot talk because she is disabled, they take a couple steps back as if she is contagious!! Believe it or not, she notices and it hurts her feelings. People need to educate themselves about the disabled. If the asker truly understood, the question would never have entered his mind. Ignorant people are the reason I have to be so protective of my daughter. If you ever have a disabled child, many of you will be singing a different tune. And don’t assume it can’t happen to you either. My daughter’s disability was not inherited by either me or my husband. Sometimes it just happens for no reason whatsoever.
In answer to this question, my focus would be on helping the most helpless or the one in most imminent danger. I pray to God I would never be put in that kind of situation.
I don’t want to hear any crap about fear of being politically incorrect. This is really a question about humanity! Nor do I want to hear any crap about saving the one who will be the most beneficial to society. WTF??? I hope and pray to God that those of you who answered “save the normal child regardless” are never in that situation.

Answer 4

Which is closest at hand? If I had to dive deeper or swim farther for the so called "normal child" than my resources would be best applied to the disabled child.
What are my capabilities? If the "normal" child weighs 120lbs and the disabled child weighs 120lbs but I can only lift 90lbs, my best bet would be to save the child who already has a carrying aid (his wheelchair) to assist my efforts.

Answer 5

I don't believe in not being able to save them both, especially with the clues you have given us.

Since the disabled child is in a wheel chair and not a stroller, it's safe to assume the child is not an infant, which means the other child is not an infant either and is probably able to walk.

Therefore, I would be able to pick up the disabled child and lead the other child to safty at the same time.

There's always a way, you just have to remain calm and think outside the box.

Answer 6

Anyone who claims to not be able to decide is being phony in order to sound politically correct. If there is truly only one that can be saved the one with the obvious deficiencies would be sacrificed for the possible benefits which the whole (normal) child might produce for society or mankind. This is purely innate human behavior. Any decision other than that (failing to make a decision would only allow both to be given up) goes against human nature.

I hate phony people and those who pretend to be politically correct. Quit being sheep and start being responsible!

Answer 7

This doesnt sound like a question asked in bad faith. I wish people would not whine about questions like this one and people were more open to speak their minds instead of always having this taboo hanging over our heads because we are supposed to be sensitive and politically correct. GOOD QUESTION THANK YOU! That said if both children were equally at risk and would be equally difficult to save I would attempt to help the mentally stable child because it would be better equipped to save someone else when it gets older.

Answer 8

If i could only save one it would be the normal child simply because it would have a better chance at life than the other, not that it's worth isn't as important, but the quality of life isn't the same. This is of course in theory, in actuality the circumstances in which the choice was to be made would be the deciding factor.

Answer 9

This would be a very hard choice to make. I agree it would depend on the situation. I can say I know I would try to save both even if it killed me. The one I saved first would depend on who was in the most trouble at the time.

Answer 10

Give me first a realistic situation (or a real situation, if possible) in which this choice is actually needed. Do you know of anyone who has had to take the choice? And what are the chances I will have to do it, too?

You see, your question is terribly upsetting, because the very idea of letting one child die is too unbearable. So I cannot even begin to set my mind to give it any thought. Especially if, as I guess, you took this just out of the blue. So, give us a good real example, and maybe I could tell you what I would have done in that particular case...