A Moral Deliberation

Hollowpnt

New member
This is fictional (I hope) but after working in the medical field for a few years I found no end to the delight of watching some of the liberal doctors I worked with ponder it out.

40 year old prison gaurd, 10 year vetran wife, two kids, mortgage, ect.. Great guy friendly, not dope mule, doesn't beat the cons and treats them with respect and compassion.

Now 46 year old 3 strike violent, sexual predator, muderer. Has 4 ex-wives unknown child count, fights, bullys, and generally makes life tough for all on his cell block.

A riot occurs and both these men are stabbed in the heart, rushed to a nearby (Kalifornia ) hospital its discovered they both have suffered massive cardiac tissue damage they both reqiure a heart transplant. Now the kicker, they are the same blood and tissue type, and both are viable candiates but thery're a rare type.
But as luck would have it, one heart becomes available but one of these men is going to die. Your the Doctor, who gets the heart?
 
I would say the younger one. Transplants are still very riskey and a younger patient will have a better chance of surviving.
 
Definatly the guard. It comes down to, sure. Everyone has a right to live, but clearly you HAVE to choose one, like it or not. Well...I think if you realize that you have to choose no matter what, the choice seems obvious.
 
Not even close

The con is:

1. OLDER - an almost automatic disqualifier, even if all else were equal;

2. A convicted murderer and sexual predator. Read: NO value to society;

3. A lifetime DRAIN on society's resources.

Once again - 3 strikes; you're OUT! :D
 
I'll go with the rest, for the same reasons.

I think you'll find here, there are few liberals. Then again, I could be wrong, JMHO.
 
Why is this a deliberation? There are no pluses in the criminals favor. No quandry at all.

Who has problems with this one?
 
Even the most liberal socialist Doctor out there would probably get this one right, there is no reason to go with the con. But even for those that couldn't, flipping a coin would even be 50/50. Live with that, doc.
 
moral question

The Doctor has taken a hypocratic oath and should assess the matter purely on medical terms in terms of survivability following surgery. He should not be making moral judgement- nor should the fatness of a parties bank account matter.
 
40 year old prison gaurd, 10 year vetran wife, two kids, mortgage, ect.. Great guy friendly, not dope mule, doesn't beat the cons and treats them with respect and compassion.

Now 46 year old 3 strike violent, sexual predator, muderer. Has 4 ex-wives unknown child count, fights, bullys, and generally makes life tough for all on his cell block.

Why is this a deliberation? There are no pluses in the criminals favor. No quandry at all.

Who has problems with this one?

I do.

I will disregard the age difference for a minute, since this quickly devolved into a discussion of socially redeeming qualities.

Since this is fiction, here's the rest of the story ...

**************

The compassionate, model citizen prison guard, is on the take. He is a sympathizer and snitch for the Aryan Nation. He has $130,000 in savings with a bank in an off-shore account. He has a mistress. Even though he doesn't directly abuse any convict (or inmate), he delves out privileges to those who pay. In the past three years he has gained weight and now weighs 220 lbs at 5'9". His wife and he are near divorce because of money problems. She just informed him that she has found another, more financially responsible man with whom to spend the rest of her life. His mistress has told him much the same thing.

**************

The 46 year old 3 strike violent, sexual predator, muderer. Has 4 ex-wives unknown child count, fights, bullys, and generally makes life tough for all on his cell block

The violent, murdering, sexual predator, is in prison for twenty years on a RICO charge. He is an outlaw biker and as such was labeled potentially violent at induction on this latest stay at the pleasure of the federal government. He has been legally married twice, first at age 19. He lost this first wife to drug abuse and an overdose. No children. Circumstances in her death, pertaining to drug use and dealing small amounts of smoke, led to his first incarceration when barely aged 21 years. He was out at age 26. When he went in, he was snot-nosed, self-centered kid. Now he is hard man to deal with, but not a kid any more. He gets work as a forklift driver in a dept store distribution center warehouse. He starts riding with an outlaw biker gang. He meets another woman. and gets married. They soon have two children. A burglary occurs at their meager apartment one night. Wife is shot dead, children hurt, he thinks they are dead. He is wounded also. In pursuit, he kills the burglar in public. Witnesses testify that he shot the man in cold blood. He was not armed, but although wounded, he disarmed and killed him with his own handgun. He was 30 years old at the time. He gets out after 6 years when testimony that wasn't permitted in the trial comes to light: He had ceased pursuit of the burglar ... that's when the burglar came back to shoot him. The 30 year old biker had managed to overcome his attacker and kill him on the spot. Blood tests on the accused burglar showed copious ammounts of PCP. The biker's blood test showed that he had been drinking, but he wasn't legally at the DUI level. His children had been placed with foster parents. He was not allowed to visit them or locate them, even after his exoneration. He goes back to forklift driving and starts working again. He doesn't have a lot of time for socializing, but after the way his biker brothers stood by him for the six years in the state pen, he starts riding with them again and meets another woman. He doesn't want to marrry. He is dedicated to riding and his so-called brotherhood. She sticks with him and they have a little girl. At 38 he marries the woman. They have a little girl. After one year, the woman moves on and leaves him. He hears that she is pregnant, but never finds out for sure. He is still riding with his outlaw gang club brothers. He is almost 40 years old. Two years later, he is in a bar with two of his biker gang brothers, when a local ruffian comes in and shoots one of his brother in the back then points the handgun at our character. The third brother fires first and the attacker is dead on the scene. In this state, it is legal to carry in a bar. A compatriot of the attacker picks up the dropped handgun and fires wildly, wounding three bystanders. Our character grabs a pool cue and smacks the shooter on the head, killing him. Both bikers are held until every patron on the scene is interviewed and gives the same story. They defended themselves. The brother who returned fire was determined to have a carry permit. His handgun and permit were returned. They were both released. No charges were made. Our character is nearly 43 years old.

One year later, riding in a pack down an interstate in, let's say, Florida, when a police roadblock stops the pack for a search. Drug task force. DEA is on the scene. There are 12 riders in the pack. Two of them have small ziplock baggies of smoke (marijuana). One has a small Altoids can of skootch ... BINGO! They all are taken in and charged with trafficking under RICO. Seven of the riders are eventually released. Five are kept under RICO and drug trafficking charges. Our character is one of them. The drug dog alerted on his bike and several small pieces of marijuana were found in one of his saddle bags.

A year later, our character and three of his brothers are convicted and inducted into the federal correction system. One of the five got off.

Our character, roadname "Nightmare" was sent to FCI (Federal Correctional Institute) Fort Dix, PO Box 7000, Bldg 5841, West Fort Dix, NJ 08640. His number is 01605-159. When questioned at the original arrest, he stated that he didn't know how many children he had fathered, not because he didn't care and not because he had abandoned any of his off spring, but because he truly didn't know.

Inside Nightmare commanded and demanded respect. No debts went unpaid. He was fiercely loyal to his brothers. He had a reputation of fairness and also one of violence. He was wounded defending the 40 year old prison guard against another violent convict because they had established a truce and that was as close as anyone that wasn't a brother ever got to Nightmare. Why would Nightmare put himself in a position to take an attack to defend a screw? Because he knew the difference between right and wrong. He also knew the difference between what's legal and what's right. He didn't know all the differences between that prison guard's life and his, but now you do.

One thing's for sure. Nightmare could have made different choices in his life.
**************

What stereotype will I see next on this board?
 
Sensop,

Why not just say "he's a criminal... no wait, he's NOT a criminal."

For the information provided, the seemingly upright citizen is more likely to take care of the organ gift provided for him; has a family that will miss him and currently rely on his support; and is a slightly younger, more vigorous candidate. From the standpoint of the FACTS provided, he is the obvious choice, and without any "judgements".


Where is the stereotype? :barf:
 
Sensop! NICE, very well considered.
If we only see the surface do we know how deep the water is and should we dive in with just that information.
Another factor to consider is the incarcerated victim, according to the ACLU, has no freedom of choice. According to their views he is the best canidate and would play hell on any Doctor's license if he didn't get the heart.
 
I am going to assume viable candidate means generally healthy. There is another factor. It is the size of the heart, and the size of the men. Unlike John Q, A Hilliary Clinton production, You can not put Denzel's heart in a little boy. It has been awhile since I saw the movie, but the women's heart who they supposdly gave him might have been too large. I think they said something about his heart being enlarged, well it might be, but that is probably a problem, because the heart needs room to contract, and expand, so the large heart prevents effecient pumping, healthy or not. Another fact, unless medicaid/care, the child qualifies, he has an illness that will kill him in a year or less, so he qualifies for ssa/ssi, which automatically qualifies for mediwhatever.
 
Handy,

Don't be offended that I singled out your post to quote. It simply summed up the consensus of responses, generally speaking.

Lawyer Daggit has it right and some other posts also mentioned an age criteria. General health is probably what's at issue, not some arbitrary decision on who is higher in the pecking order.

Read the original post and the way the facts are presented (No offense meant to Hollowpoint on that count). Then read the consensus that follows.

I don't expect the doctor(s) making the decision to know all these obscure details about the individuals. My post is merely a wordy response to, "Who gets the heart, the prisoner or the guard?" and my offering that there is more to it than that. Even if the life story of each was laid down in a dossier for the doctor's moral consideration, there is more to a man's life than the public record. The stereotype is built in to the question. Even though Hollowpoint may not have intended it to seem so, in my reading it was a question of who deserves to live more, the guard or the convict?

How long had it been since the guard had been drug tested? And on and on ...
 
Sensop,

I'm certainly not offended, but you're reading all the distractors in the article and assuming that they are the de facto rationale for my and others decision.

Your response is that of the "moral quanderer" who deliberates all the possibilities until both victims are dead and no choice has to be made.

As I said, the facts provided also provide key decision points:
1. Will the recipient care for the gift?
2. Do others rely on the recipient?
3. Is the recipient the best candidate medically?

The answer to all three is pretty obvious given the information provided, and that information should be considered final due to emergency nature of the surgery. My post was to underline that there is no positive information provided for the con on any of those three critical points.

The relativism of your wringing-hands post is exactly the sort of behavior a surgeon can't afford, and should be avoided. A decision, based on the information available, can only be judged in the light of that information. Not a string of 'what ifs' and an overconcern for seperation of societal from factual data points. In this case, one informs the other.

The only thing I would be offended by is this: You've made assumptions about why we made our decisions, and then caution us about making moral assumptions! In my case, you were wrong. I can only speak for myself, that's the case with all of the posters you're addressing.
 
Such a tempest in a teapot! Sensop's story reminds me of the Thieve's World sci fi series where various writers wrote stories based loosely on an original description of the character "One Thumb". None of them was more or less real as all were fiction, so one could pick and choose which ones they liked.

So I will add to the story, one more layer. Our guard, the snitch for the Aryan Nations is actually an operative who took years to place in this position and who was collecting evidence linking four neoNazi leaders and thirteen of their minions to a series of brutal ritual murders of prostitutes in northern Nevada and southern Utah. He was assigned to this prison specifically to gain one key name of a witness to the murder of a thirteen year old prosititute who had been abducted two years before from a rest area on the Georgia-Florida border. His "mistress" is actually his partner, a dedicated undercover cop who had been instrumental in breaking the Sling-Lo gang back in the mid 80's. Their fight and separation was staged to give him an alibi to make him appear more consistant in appearing to be vulnerable to needing protection in the prison and to give her an excuse to move in with one of the neoNazi leaders who was subject of their investigation. This would complete her parallel invstigation of the link between the neoNazis and Osama bin Laden. His separation with his wife, was to protect her from Arab retalliation, should word get out before all the consiprators were picked up. The wife is now living safely in a small town in central Ohio, waiting for him to finish this assignment.

*****************************

Our felonious friend "Nightmare" had protected the guard and gotten stabbed because he was working for a fellow prisoner who was providing him with young boys in return for protection. The other prisoner happened to be one of the prostitution-murder ring and the key witness, who at the time was firmly convinced the guard was his own pigeon and would get him released at the height of the riot.

*************************
Which means nothing, except that the more elaborate the fiction, the more elaborate the fiction.

But I'm sticking by my first simpleminded stereotype. The first enemy combatant should be transported for care only after the last friendly is cared for. The line forms from the rear.
 
Back
Top