If you had to choose, who would you save?

Question

This is a hypothetical question. You are on the board of a small hospital. They have 2 dialisis machines. 5 people need dialasis. The people are in random order-
-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?

Like I said It's just a hypothetical question. I'm seeing if men answer differently than women. Just courious. Thanks for all the answers btw!

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

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

Answer 4

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.

Answer 5

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.

Answer 6

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!

Answer 7

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?

Answer 8

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.

Answer 9

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....

Answer 10

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.