Moral Dilemma: Doctor's Sick Patients

Like i said in the previous post, i have stopped doing the 30 days challenges for the time being cause i'm just tired at the moment. 

I am, of course, gonna continue blogging but just random intervals. 

So, this blog post is just what i would answer to one of the moral dilemmas that can be found in an article. [Moral Dilemmas article] This is gonna be just how I will answer it, so you don't have to necessarily agree with it. 

Lets start.

"You are a very skilled doctor with five dying patients, each of whom needs a different organ in order to live. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of the transplants. It just so happens that you have a sixth dying patient, suffering from a fatal illness, who will die sooner than the other five if not treated. If this sixth patient dies, you will be able to use his organs to save the five other patients. However, you have a medicine you can give to this sixth patient that will cure his illness and he won’t die. Would you:

a: Wait for the patient to die and then harvest his organs or
b: Save the patient even though the other patients won’t get organs.

If you chose to administer the medicine, would you still do so even if the medicine will not cure the patient, but, instead, delay his death to some short term future date or time after the five patients will have died? Why?"

This is exactly one of the kinds of things that i imagined a doctor would go through. The kind of responsibility each decision holds. 

Wouldn't it be easier if the sixth patient was an organ donor? Even so, he actually need to die first before being able to go in his body to get rid of the organs. 

Haha, picking an option is not as simple as i thought. There are so many things and factors to think about.

I think firstly, i would definitely ask the other family members for opinions. Even though it doesn't help with the decision. 

You know, there are so many complications that comes with transplanting organs. The blood types must be matching, the tissue must be a match too. Not forgetting life expectancy, severity of conditions, influx of diseases and also family support play a huge part in the decision. 

On one hand there's this medication that will cure whatever sickness the sixth patient has, and the other hand, it's the lives of 5 people. It's like the life of one person versus the lives of five. Of course the logical thing to do in this case is to save the five lives, but it's actually hard to decide. 

What is the blood type or tissues don't match? What if the body rejects the organ? What if they get diseases after the transplant? 

So many things to think about, it's making me confused. Haha when i started the blog post, i had an answer, now the more i think about it, the harder it is for me to decide. 

Okay, i actually wanted to save the sixth patient since there's a medication that will cure the patient fully, particularly because of the questions i asked above. If the pill doesn't cure anything and just delays the death, then i shall go for the transplant. 

If you tell me there are no risks in the transplant and it's proven that the organ transplants will be 100% success, then yes, i will help save the lives of the 5 patients. 
Yeah, i've made up my mind. I better stop now before i start thinking more and the whole answer gets complicated. 

Besides, i'm sure the sixth patience would want the same too. He's helping the lives on 5 people and in a way, he is still around. 

K, abrupt end. Have a nice day, lovelies!

P/S: Go ahead and tell what you guys would do.