[Tanada]

This test with minor variations is circulating around the Internet. The original copy was brought home from middle school by a student in Illinois, USA and delivered to varied news sources by the parents.

How would you score the test and why?

____________________________________The Assignment



The following ten people have a problem. They are all in desperate need of Kidney Dialysis(the process that removes wastes from the bloodstream). Unless they receive this procedure, they will die. The hospital has enough machines to support only six people. That means four of the people are not going to live. You must decide from the information provided below which six will survive. Next to each person’s short biography there is a line where you place a score. Put the people in order using 1-10, 1 being the person you want to save first and 10 being the person you would save last. You are only allowed to use the information provided. Look to the key at the bottom of the page decipher the symbols.



Occupation_____Age______Sex/Ethnicity_____ Children_____Status________Score

Housewife ______35_______F, W_____________M:12, F:7____Married___________

Doctor__________65_______M, L______________None_______Married___________

Lawyer_________60_______M, B_____________M:25________Married___________

Autistic/
Disabled
Person__________9________F, W_____________None________Single____________

College
Student________20________M, W____________None________Single_____________

Ex-Convict
Manslaughter___40________M, B____________M:13, M:10____Married___________

Prostitute______23________F, W_____________F:3__________Single____________

Teacher________35________M, B____________None_________Married___________

Minister
(Lutheran)______55________F, W___________F:30, M:27_____Married___________

Police
Officer_________47________M, B____________None_________Divorced__________



Key:
M=Male F=Female B=Black L=Latino W=White
The number next to the children’s sex is their age. For example,
M:17 means the child is a 17 year old male.

[ROCKMAN]

Very interesting. But I'm not sure how one could make a logical choice without knowing which ones were Jews, Muslims, Yankees, Democrats, foreigners, etc. And most importantly, which ones aren't Texans. If one is going to decide who lives and dies you need all the important info. Additionally we would have to monitor the lucky patients for the rest of their lives to be sure they become valuable assets to society. If a boy child is saved and grows to be a teenage punk stealing and raping then society would share some of the responsibility for his actions. It would reasonable at that point, since we gave him life, that society would have the right to take his life back and harvest his organs for more worthy folks.

I see similar requirements for oil/NG resources. The US has the financial resources to acquire a very significant portion of global energy. The current distribution is determined by the ability to pay for the energy. Of course, we could use that same protocol to determine who gets the transplants: the highest bidder lives...the poor suffer their fate. After all, they are responsible for their earning abilities. Likewise those other economies that can't compete financially with the US for energy resources are also responsible for their fate. Of course, lacking the ability to acquire all the energy they need to feed their population will lead to a great many more deaths than the question of who gets transplants. But this is the current acceptable US protocol for energy distribution so it would be consistent to allow capital resources to determine who gets the transplants...at least our standards.

So a simple solution: if you have the money you not only get to heat your home, drive to work, etc. but also get the transplant and live. That wasn't so difficult a question after all.

[Tanada]

It is always interesting to know what criteria people use as their personal set of Ethics.

[SeaGypsy]

If the world had your clarity, wisdom, insight and money Rock- we might all be happy! (Never mind the droll humor lol!)

[Tanada]

If the world had your clarity, wisdom, insight and money Rock- we might all be happy! (Never mind the droll humor lol!)

I figured you would like this test Seagypsy, after all MQ advocated it heavily under the catch all term The Lifeboat Scenario. How do you score the ten persons and why?

[SeaGypsy]

I chicken out and let them decide among themselves

[SeaGypsy]

Besides I'm a damn good swimmer! Completely out of training I timed myself a couple of days ago- I swam 50 meters in 35 seconds, 2 seconds slower than at my peak at 15 years old. I can still run 8 minute miles all day at 46 years old- after many years of off and on smoking, drinking being pretty wild in my lifestyle. Lifeboat- I look for my family and some flotsam. Medical- I assume we're running out of it anyway so it's mostly who needs the most time to say goodbye!

[vision-master]

Besides I'm a damn good swimmer! Completely out of training I timed myself a couple of days ago- I swam 50 meters in 35 seconds, 2 seconds slower than at my peak at 15 years old. I can still run 8 minute miles all day at 46 years old- after many years of off and on smoking, drinking being pretty wild in my lifestyle. Lifeboat- I look for my family and some flotsam. Medical- I assume we're running out of it anyway so it's mostly who needs the most time to say goodbye!

Get back to us at age 56, then 66. By age 66 most likely your running day's will be a walk.

[Newfie]

I came across this in a different setting 20 some years ago. Work sponsored group, similar but we all had to agree on which one out of 5 got the transplant or no one did. Had to be unanimous.

In our sample one was a ner do well woman, but the only mother. We could all agree that some other person in the sample was more deserving except one guy. For that one guy the fact that this woman was a mother was the single over riding fact, bar none. She could have been a female Hannibel Lecter vs MLK, to this gut it didn't matter.

Damn near came to blows, and in the end he conceded for sake of unanimity and only because it was an exercise. In real life he would not have conceded.

He explained that his Mother was extremely important to him and, in his minds eye, all Mothers were saintly beyond reason. He COULD NOT conceive of a Mother as other than immaculate.

He was an otherwise reasonable and normal human. And I wad convinced of his honesty.

I feel these tests reflect less about ethics than they say something about the forces that shaped us. They say something about our view of the world and how we expect to be treated.

Serving on a jury was also enlightening.

[SeaGypsy]

Besides I'm a damn good swimmer! Completely out of training I timed myself a couple of days ago- I swam 50 meters in 35 seconds, 2 seconds slower than at my peak at 15 years old. I can still run 8 minute miles all day at 46 years old- after many years of off and on smoking, drinking being pretty wild in my lifestyle. Lifeboat- I look for my family and some flotsam. Medical- I assume we're running out of it anyway so it's mostly who needs the most time to say goodbye!

Get back to us at age 56, then 66. By age 66 most likely your running day's will be a walk.

Bollocks. I don't know what's wrong with you VM, but I have had my butt kicked in footraces by guys in their 60's & at picking vegetables by farm labourer women in their 80's. Constitution, attitude, diet, persistence, tolerance and stamina all contribute. We aren't all the same.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Young_(athlete)

In 1983, the 61-year-old potato farmer won the inaugural Westfield Sydney to Melbourne Ultramarathon, a distance of 875 kilometres (544 mi). The race was run between what were then Australia's two largest Westfield shopping centres: Westfield Parramatta, in Sydney, and Westfield Doncaster, in Melbourne.[4] He ran at a slow loping pace and trailed the leaders for most of the first day, but by running while the others slept, he took the lead the first night and maintained it for the remainder of the race, eventually winning by ten hours.

Before running the race, he told the press that he had previously run for two to three days straight rounding up sheep in gumboots.[5] He claimed afterwards that during the race, he imagined that he was running after sheep and trying to outrun a storm. The Westfield run took him five days, 15 hours and four minutes,

Cliff was according to legend, a virgin when he became famous for this run. He subsequently married a lass in her 20's and kicked on for another 20 years and died with most of his faculties

[Plantagenet]

The rich ones ( doctor and lawyer) will pay for their own care and live and the poor ones (ex-con and prostitue) will have their care paid for by the government and they will live

The middle class people will be the ones left to die

[ROCKMAN]

Newbie - Your exercise brings up an aspect I considered: the personal cost. Simple example...just two choices: a healthy vibrant 21 yo woman with a 1 yo child or a 50 yo man with two grown and financially successful children and several grandchildren. How would folks pick? Given either/or I would expect the majority would pick the woman. Show of hands here. Why not...doesn't affect them either way. Now change the game: the 50 man is your father. A rather sticky wicket now, eh? Easier choice when it doesn't effect one directly. Kinda like being in favor of a new law that negatively affects a great many but doesn't impact you.

Let's try another problem many others have faced for real. Everyone understands the concept of the "point man": risk one man if zapped instead of risking the entire platoon. Very logical and the obvious way to go. But you're the sergeant and need to pick who goes on point. Do you put your best grunt up front because he has a better chance of survival or do you put your biggest f*ckup out there because loosing him doesn't degrade your unit? Or just use a rotation system and let fate decide who gets it...IOW ignore your responsibility.

Now make your decision...and then try to sleep with it. LOL.

How about an oil producer selling their oil at a big discount to a poor country to help them feed their starving population? Not a bad thing for the US if it were the KSA sending oil that was earmarked for the EU, eh? But how would we US citizens feel if this were done by Canada with "our oil"?

[Newfie]

I spent 14 years on the board of the local Ethical Humanist Society, 4 years as President. Had some heated arguments about ethics.

I've come to believe all ethics are situational.

Beyond that, I've come to believe all ethics derive from our human condition.

Reading E.O. Wilson's latest book affirmed that belief and gave me a better understanding of how we came to be as we are.

[Tanada]

Several of you have commented on how hard a decision this problem is, however so far as I can tell only Rockman and Plantagenent have even come close to actually answering it. Pull up your big boy (girl) britches and answer, who would YOU pick and why?

In the UK today this decision is made by a simple rule, the patient undergoes training on how to hook themselves up to the equipment and there after they report to the treatment facility three times a week and treat themselves using the health system owned equipment. If they are ill due to something like the influenza virus and can't do it themselves for a limited time period they are assisted, however if they are mentally incapable due to senile dementia outside assistance is not allowed. This is intended to prevent wasting resources on patients who are mentally degenerating that can be better used on patients who are more capable. I am not saying this is good or bad, simply pointing out that a system is in place in the UK to solve the issue of too many patients and too few machines. Dieing from kidney failure is actually one of the least painful and most certain forms of suicide in the USA, when a person decides they no longer want to live with three times a week Dialysis they simply stop going and enjoy the last week or two of lucidity doing whatever they want to do before the Potassium concentration in their blood exceeds the tolerance of their heart muscle and it simply stops pumping blood. Usually this happens while the patient is in a coma like state because higher brain functions stop before the heart does. One of the regular posters on here in the early days of Peak oil dot Com is a Nephrologist, he and I had several conversations on the topic, and one of my health care providers put himself through medical school working in an out patient dialysis facility.

Because of what I know about the topic it is less than fair for me to make the choices I would make known first, however once four or five others make their actual 10 count public I will post mine.

[John_A]

Very interesting. But I'm not sure how one could make a logical choice without knowing which ones were Jews, Muslims, Yankees, Democrats, foreigners, etc. And most importantly, which ones aren't Texans.

It is a wonderful Rorschach test isn't it?

If they aren't from Texas, off with their heads. Seems as fair as those who are misogynist, femmi-nazis, or gay, conservative, liberal deciding to keep their "kind" and get rid of the rest.

What would the answer be from a Doomer?

LET THEM ALL DIE...SAVE THE DIALYSIS MACHINE RESOURCES FOR ME!!!!!

[Newfie]

Sorry Tanda, ain't gonna do it.

My experience is that although we can talk about these things taking such a test proves little. If you are faced with the actual situation your actual decision may well be very different.

My ex-wife used to ask me things like "if it came between me and #1 kid, life and death, who would you choose?" I chose, my current Wife doesn't ask such inane questions.

[ROCKMAN]

Newbie - I essentially agree with you. There really is no all encompassing answer. " I've come to believe all ethics are situational"... which IMHO means there is no absolute ethic involved. Thus there is no such thing as "ethical choices"...just choices one makes and strives to justify them to yourself and others.

So you put the f*ckup on point and do the best you can to get the rest back to the World. And then don't look back because you'll never really will be able to justify it to yourself that you made a choice as to who lives and who dies. See...another ethical dilemma that wasn't that difficult to work out. LOL.

[ROCKMAN]

John - I agree. The purpose of such questions are to reveal the nature of those being quizzed. There is no right/wrong answer...just your answer and what it might say about you. Which, if you look back, explains why I didn't really answer the question. LOL

[SeaGypsy]

Me, Ibon and a few others here have wives from 3rd world countries, with siblings and sometimes parents living in much more precarious situations than ourselves. We do have to face real ethics choices quite regularly and on an ongoing basis.

Here's an article I wrote just before I joined peakoil.com:

One day, during our engagement something came up about money. I don’t recall what it was, but I had to give it some thought. I said so to Hana; then followed with: ‘I am somewhat selfish.’ Her response was ‘What?! That’s bad, that’s really really bad!’ I tried to explain to her that I have to be careful with my resources in order to survive, let alone help anyone else! She was stuck on the fact I had called myself ‘Selfish’. No self respecting Filipino would do that!
Selfish or Unselfish?
Finally, after our marriage, we got into discussion on this subject again. Her point of view had not changed 1 iota: “Selfishness is BAD (full stop)”.
After significant discussion I realized our understanding of the word is very different. Hana’s was black and white. You are either selfish or not selfish; no room for grey in this picture!
As a typical westerner in some respects my perspective is entirely different. Selfishness occurs on a sliding scale. Almost nobody is utterly one way or the other. In western psychology we have terms to describe the poles in this aspect of behaviour: narcissism, psychopathology, sociopathy at one end followed by altruism, self sacrifice on the other. If most people were in either polarity we would be living on a totally different planet.
So I try to argue it out.
From what I can tell it’s an absolute here: selfishness is bad. Like a religious principle; beyond question.
After much debate and attempts at explaining the complexity of the issue, I start to feel like I’m bashing my head against the wall. Then I kind of won the argument; almost by accident!
I said “Ok so the right way to be is utterly unselfish?”
“Yes of course!” Came the reply.
“Ok, so let’s say you are walking along with all of your money in your pocket, say 1000 pesos?”
“Yes; then?”
“Then you come across a really hungry beggar; being unselfish, you give him half?”
” No! Maybe 100, or 50, so he can eat!”
“Why? You are unselfish, well fed, yet he has nothing! Of course you will give half!”
“(silence)(slightly stunned expression)”
“Ok, now you have 500 because you are such a nice person; and here is another beggar…, of course now you only have 250!”
“But that’s too much! Just give them enough to eat something, that’s all!”
“But, no we are unselfish; now we have 250!”
“Another beggar; 125!”
“So do you get me? By unselfishly walking past and helping 3 beggars; you have reduced your capital from 1000 to 125 Pesos!”
I don’t think this qualifies as ‘Checkmate’ but ‘Stalemate’.
We can all afford to be somewhat generous some of the time. But one Filipino idea I don’t believe is that no good person has any selfishness about them at all.
It’s a fantasy and a fabrication.
True altruism is, unfortunately; more rare than true psychopathology.

[Newfie]

Selfishness, another ethical conundrum.

I believe we are all very selfish, it all depends upon what you value, your money, or your your view of yourself.

Tricky questions here.

Good for a long night and a tall bottle.