Okay, I was asked this question the other day, so I thought I'd share it with you.

You're a doctor, and you have three infected patients; a baby, an older teenager, and an elderly grandmother. You only have one antidote, who do you save?

I will share my answer later.

Not a trick question, right?

I would save the teenager.
The baby hasn't lived long enough to, hopefully feel the pain.. the grandmother has lived her life, and the teenager has the most potential to heal safely from the disease.

But this decision is probably one of the hardest anyone could be faced with.

i'd have to know something about the teen before making that choice... if it's a gang-banger, i'd go with the baby... being one of the third choice myself, if i were that one, i'd turn down the cure in favor of one of the other two, anyway, so the doctor would only have two to choose from...

I myself would have to choose the teenager, because he's experienced life. The old grandmother has already experienced and lived life, and the baby has not experienced it.

would you still choose the teen if he was a drive-by-shooter gang-banger?

It depends on what kind of person the teen is. If he is someone that has potential to accomplish important things, then I'd go with him. However if he is just some gangbanger I would choose the baby.

Yeah basically same as what everyone else has said unfortunately ;\ Decide based on what i know if the teenager deserves to live or not, if not then go with the baby.

I'd let each one of them pick a number, one through twenty, and then find one of those twenty-sided dice and throw it out. Whoever is closest gets to live.

would you still choose the teen if he was a drive-by-shooter gang-banger?

Yes, because by me saving him it could possibly change his life. You never know, the baby may grow up to be a serial killer

Does it have to be an evil teen? What WWTW said about the baby growing up was what I was thinking...

The teenager could be a nerd, for example. We're not all bad!

The world needs gang-bangers. Without them, police and good people would be out of jobs. :P

To answer the question directly: the teen, for reasons others have stated. The question wasn't: who would you save? the healthy baby, the thug teen, or dying grandmother. Just a baby, a teen, and a grandmother.

Is a Gang-Bangers life worth any less than a nice teenagers life?
Or are we all human, and all lives are worth the same?

If a choice must be made, yes, one life may indeed have become worth more than another. Choices have consequences, and if one life must be chosen over another, merit matters.

From my point of view they're all equal, and I don't think I could decide.
Sorry my response is so lame, but my views just get in the way xD

Equal as human beings? Yes.
Equal expectancy of life in terms of length and quality? No.

You wouldn't give give a new pair of kidneys or a liver to an alcoholic when are others in need. But that does not make the drug user any less of a human. Agreed?

But we all play a role in life- some are policemen. Some are librarians, firefighters- and some are gangbangers. Who's to say a gangbangers life is worth any less than anyone elses? Just because they chose a different lifestyle than others doesn't mean they're worth less. And the quality of their life is independent to the person living it. They may enjoy their life. To me- that is. You have your view, and its just as good as mine :D

I didn't mean quality of their life in regards to if they enjoy it. I meant, if you're going to be dodging bullets all day, chances are that you won't live as long regardless of the infection.

Again, I didn't say that the person is worth any less. When you're saving someone with limited resources, you want them to be able to live for a long time. If the teen has a high chance of being given the antidote, then going outside and getting shot the next day, we've pretty much wasted our efforts.


ETA: My Death Cab is Cuter than yours. That is all. :P

If I had no other choice but to make a choice, then it would be the teen. The teen is the one person in the choice of people capable of understanding the explanation I would give afterward, and actually putting it to good use.

I am sure the elderly person would understand my choice. That person would have the maturity to have perspective. The baby would be a heartbreaking loss, one that would probably break me, but…

I would explain to the teen, after I had made and enacted my choice, that I chose him/her because I had to make a choice. The price for the gift I had given the teen would be to always love and respect the elderly and wise, and that when the teen became a parent, he/she was to remember this day and this choice and this gift, and give all the love and caring that the lost baby never received to the new child. I realize that’s a lot to lay on a teen, but there has to be some sort of remembrance for the passing of two people to save one.

You're a doctor, and you have three infected patients; a baby, an older teenager, and an elderly grandmother. You only have one antidote, who do you save?

Humm tricky. Being a Doctor that means I have to have close contact them and there is a high probability (if not absolute) that what ever is infecting them is contagious, perhaps even highly contagious.

Since I have only one antidote.

I save myself.

I wouldn't want to offend the family of the infant, but I'd rule the baby out quickly, life has yet to begin for him/her and so he/she will miss nothing. As to the elderly person, if he/she could not understand why I would not choose him/her as the recipient, he/she would be proving me right. The teen and I would have to have a discussion about the value of life and how my giving him/her a second chance, it means he/she needs to do the same for all he/she meets. If the teen cannot understand this, well then, I guess the antidote will go to some other doctor's patient, won't it?

How would you guys respond if I changed--sorry, WWTW--the question to this:

Who would you save? A potent baby, a drunkard man in his twenties, or a sick grandma?

Think of the needs of each patient, and also think about the price you're paying. theoritically, of course.

Who would you save? A potent baby, a drunkard man in his twenties, or a sick grandma?

What exactly is a 'potent' baby?

Not sure, but it seems like it'd be able to fend for itself.

Drunkard, and no problem Risen. Sick Grandma will probably die, and she probably would agree to save someone else. The baby, still, has never experienced life, while the drunkard has. I'll put it into terms of video games ;) ; Baby is a save game with no progress, drunkard is a half-finished game, and sick grandmother is a second time through the game. ;)

damn ungood, you stole my answer.

no but seriously though, i don't see everyone as equal. if you go around shooting people and contribute nothing to society except a ****ty "why me?" attitude then, in my opinion, your life is irrelavent. i don't care about your sob story, or what made you the way you are. i am sorry for the horrible physical and sexual abuse that created most of the world's serial killers, but the fact remains that they are serial killers, and if the choice was mine, they would all be dead serial killers.

if that baby was going to be raised by a violent klan member in some shack in the deep south, i'd prolly let it die, not a high probability of him growing up and not being an butthole.

teenager, what everyone said before me.

granny, i'd want to save her most. haven't met that many old ladies i've ever wanted to kill (let die)... the only one that comes to mind is tony soprano's mom... gahhd what a evil old hag. still, i'd end up going with the teen if possible but only out of personal obligation to logic and reason, if emotion ruled i'd save granny, whether she wanted me to or not.

**sniff** i miss you granny.

if the choice was mine, they would all be dead serial killers.

Wouldn't that make you a serial killer too?

haven't met that many old ladies i've ever wanted to kill (let die)...

I've met a few, and wouldn't have a problem whatsoever.

Wouldn't that make you a serial killer too?

in much the same way people who are for the death penalty are serial killers.

... another debate?

You're a doctor, and you have three infected patients; a baby, an older teenager, and an elderly grandmother. You only have one antidote, who do you save?
I would save the teenager as hopefully the baby will not really realise they are going to die, and the old person has already experienced their lives, so they are both out of luck.

As for looking at the teenagers life and seeing that they "deserve" the antidote as they are not a nasty person, I do not think it is my decision to decide they have not been good enough to deserve to live ... that is not my decsicion to make, and it would be rather hyporcritical of me since I have done things that are not exactly good in my life, and yet I am going to restrict someone from having their life because they do not deserve it.

No, I would give it to the teenager regardless of what they have done in life. Maybe it will be the thing they need to change their life and turn it around.

People are born equal, but their choices are what make them no longer equal.

Heather, the conditions of the question do make it your decision. However, if you are in that position, you have the right to decide what factors are most relevant to your decision - apart from ethical strictures imposed by the law and your profession.

This is another potential landmine of a topic. It very closely approaches issues like abortion and euthenasia, so everyone please proceed with caution, and above all respect for others with differing views.

Heather, the conditions of the question do make it your decision. However, if you are in that position, you have the right to decide what factors are most relevant to your decision - apart from ethical strictures imposed by the law and your profession. I know that I, with answering this question, am putting myself in a situation where I am to decide who should keep their life ... but in the case where I am looking at it, I am looking at it in a way that is impartial to the personality and qualities of the person, and just looking at it in a practical way.

Also, what is to say that if I give this baby a chance in life, they are not going to grow up to be the next Hilter ?? In my opnion, I would say if I was to make a decision like that, i would have to do it by remiaing detached from these people ... and just looking at it on a practical basis.

People are born equal, but their choices are what make them no longer equal.

Also, I disagree with this statement. I think that no matter what your choices in life, people are always equal. I mean ... you could look at two children. One is an A* pupil, always doing homework, never getting in trouble ... perfect behaviour. The other one is an underage drinker, failing half of their subjects, smoker etc etc. Because this person has made bad choices throughout their life, does it make them any less equal to the perfectly behavaded pupil.

Also, someone may be a horrible person to children, for example, and on a scale, that may loose them, 10 points. But they may love dogs, whch gains them 2 points, and they're a vegetarian, which gains them 3, all of that sort of thing. Does other things not equal out the bad ??

Now I know I am going to have a torret of people telling me it is about limits and boundaries ... but who sets the boundries. Who decides what is good enough, and what is too bad that they to dnot desevre a life.

So not, I do not beleive that people are any less equal no matter what their choices in life. The perfectly behaved, model worker, is just as equal to the serial killer in terms of who deserves their life.