- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 62
- Reaction score
- 0
If you had exactly 100 pills that could cure cancer, how would you decide who to give them to?
If you had exactly 100 pills that could cure cancer, how would you decide who to give them to?
I would give them to the 100 highest bidders.
Alternatively, I could give them to a 100 poor people in Africa, since poor Africans are clearly more valuable and moral than American poor people.
Whew!If you had exactly 100 pills that could cure cancer, how would you decide who to give them to?
The case of age (potential)
The case of usefulness to society (the cashier at McDonald's vs. a teacher)
The case of economic resources (who can offer more money)
The case of need (A mother/father of 3 vs. a single childless patient)
....Obviously, there is hardly a right answer since our judgments of who is useful, needed, and has the more potential can be mistaken, and these criteriae are subjective and overlapping with each other.
To answer your question, I don't know. I'm just offering some ground on which to base your answer.
The case of age (potential)
The case of usefulness to society (the cashier at McDonald's vs. a teacher)
The case of economic resources (who can offer more money)
The case of need (A mother/father of 3 vs. a single childless patient)
....Obviously, there is hardly a right answer since our judgments of who is useful, needed, and has the more potential can be mistaken, and these criteriae are subjective and overlapping with each other.
To answer your question, I don't know. I'm just offering some ground on which to base your answer.
Welcome to clinical medicine. Let's hope you never have to triage.One thing I hate about ethical questions is that they involve criteria like this and make us decide whose life is more valuable. I hope I am never in a situation where I'm the less valuable life--ouch.
c'mon on I'm looking for serious answers here....highest bidders...LOL......
This was what I was thinking:
I wouldn't give them to anybody, instead I would give it to a research pharmaceutical company to learn more about the drug and to test out its efficacy on monkeys and see if is safe to replicate it to make more. You think that sounds lame? 100 pills can't save the millions with cancer and no one life is more important over another and so I can't pick and choose the 100.
Does that sound like a legit answer?
I think maybe this question is testing out of the whole bunch how do you narrow it to the selected 100. We're talking about human life here....most precious thing in the world.......dont care if you're Bill Gates or some poor lad on the streets. No matter what you're character is whether convicted criminal or great leader......everyone's life is valuable.....it's all about equality.Do you think this is good answer
Welcome to clinical medicine. Let's hope you never have to triage.
Wait, I'll call the doc from Boiler Room. Sell him 2,000 shares, cap him at first, but let him buy more if he wants. Then I'll ship him pixie sticks.
It actually becomes sort of fun if you can shut off those pesky things called emotions.well i didn't say i couldn't do it. i just hate that we have to.
One thing I hate about ethical questions is that they involve criteria like this and make us decide whose life is more valuable. I hope I am never in a situation where I'm the less valuable life--ouch.
If you had exactly 100 pills that could cure cancer, how would you decide who to give them to?
I would. If you don't want a stupid answer, don't ask a stupid question. 100 pills to cure cancer. Pffft. If it's going to be reasonable, why not at least make it in the context of a clinical trial?I also wouldn't give some lame answer about "indentifying the compound and mass producing it". They probably hear that answer from every unprepared smuck that walks thru the door. It is a ethics question, not a problem-solving question.
I would. If you don't want a stupid answer, don't ask a stupid question. 100 pills to cure cancer. Pffft. If it's going to be reasonable, why not at least make it in the context of a clinical trial?
All or none for me. If they won't let you produce more, just destroy them. It'll create more problems than there already were.
Tell them you'd have an application process:
The first step would be online explaining why you've always wanted this pill and what you've done to deserve it.
The second would be a series of essays and some fees just for fun. Also, other people will write letters saying that the patient does, indeed have cancer, and that he wants the pill more than anyone else with cancer.
Then you'd interview the patients.
Make them wait awhile and wonder if they get the pill or die of cancer.
Put them on an alternate list (in case someone offered the pill would opt for cancer)
Then the deserving people get the pill and the rest just waited around for a year and wasted all their time and money.
Tell them you'd have an application process:
The first step would be online explaining why you've always wanted this pill and what you've done to deserve it.
The second would be a series of essays and some fees just for fun. Also, other people will write letters saying that the patient does, indeed have cancer, and that he wants the pill more than anyone else with cancer.
Then you'd interview the patients.
Make them wait awhile and wonder if they get the pill or die of cancer.
Put them on an alternate list (in case someone offered the pill would opt for cancer)
Then the deserving people get the pill and the rest just waited around for a year and wasted all their time and money.
?! Is that what you would do with the flu vaccine???
If you had exactly 100 pills that could cure cancer, how would you decide who to give them to?
I agree.....the 90 highest bidders, 1 for someone who can make more, and the rest for myself, my daughter, etc.
Great, one more product of our "Everyone's opinion is equally valid!" moral relativist higher ed system. Manson = Gandhi. Hitler = Cushing. They're all the same, because in the end we're all just pieces of meat.
It's nothing but nihilism couched in misguided understandings of "equality" and "justice". Bleah.
I disagree with dropkick. These questions aren't designed to make you choose. That, actually, is the exact opposite of what these questions are intended for. To say one person is better or more deserving based on subjective criteria is the definition of unethical.
When I go over informed consent/choice I would tell the patients about the scarcity. If people know about it, a good chunk would probably opt for the therapies that are available now unless they do have a wife/husband and 3 kids depending on them, or are a child with great potential. If we as doctors make the decision to withhold these pills, it will make people irrate. But if these cancer patients are in control, they'd actually probably act fair and rationally (at least more so than the normal population). Sure you'd get some greedy people, but you'll also get some altruistic people. I would guess about 75-80% of people over 70 years old would not take the pill. Pure speculation, but it puts the patients in control to make the decisions that affect their life. This could fail terribly, but I don't think I'm in any position to make these types of decisions. Just because I'm a doctor doesn't make me God...
These type of questions only rid the truley honest applicants out.
...I disagree that all human life is equal. Granted we all have the benefit of the doubt and when looking at a human from the "potential" aspect of their lives, everyone's worth saving. But then there are plenty of people out there who are wasting their lives and will never live up to or even approach the idea of "potential"
If you had exactly 100 pills that could cure cancer, how would you decide who to give them to?
I sure hope you get someone to edit your PS.
If you had exactly 100 pills that could cure cancer, how would you decide who to give them to?
If you had exactly 100 pills that could cure cancer, how would you decide who to give them to?