Big deal, so can the rest of us 60-70 million. You know what they say, if you're one in a million, you have 1000 clones in China.

It's only intent if I intend to do it, in the sense that I make preparations, this is how intent is proven. Also, I'll reiterate my argument that I didn't kill them people, the train did. Once the situation was without solutions in which 0 people die, I chose the solution where 1 people dies.

Just because I knew s/he would die means not that I killed him/her. What, if an idiot jumps in front of a bus on bridge, I am to jump off to try and save him, killing all on board?

Sometimes actions kill people. While there are alternatives where nobody dies, you are obligated to take that (that's another discussion right there). But once there is no way around it, we no longer take that into account.

This is basically how war works. And self defense. Once you know the guy in front of you is going to kill someone (you, namely), then one body is already on its way to the bag, and you have to choose between a murderer and a victim. Pre-made, pre-heated, ready-to-eat decision.

Hamilton Berger: "So, in order to save these 5 others it was your intent to kill Joe the plumber?"

You: "No"

Him: "You testified that you knew that pulling the lever would switch the train to the track that Joe was tied helplessly to, didn't you?"

You: "Yes"

Him: "You did pull the lever didn't you?"

You: "Yes"

Him: "The train switched tracks because of that didn't it?"

You: "Yes"

Him: "Joe the plumber is now dead because of what you did; Isn't he?"

You: "No."

Him: "Isn't he?"

You: "No. Joe was dead when I arrived there."

Him: "He was breathing and screaming for help"

You: "There's nothing anybody could have done"

Him: "You could have left the switch alone"

You: "You are suggesting more death would serve a purpose?"

<objection, yes or no!>

You: "Yes, I could have killed more people."

(Break for a word from our sponsors.)

This much harder or much easier, depending on situation. In theory, a doctor has to do no harm. As long as the damned organ hoarder keeps breathing, there's nothing TO do, as a doctor is not allowed to kill under any circumstances.

However, I'm pretty sure there are rules to obey, guidelines set by the medical community much like the military. I don't know which they are, but a doctor working the emergency in a hospital ready for such a large transplant operation would.


Then tough luck. Just because someone ELSE is dying doesn't mean you can harvest me. Now if I couldn't be saved, we discuss. If I can, then no, you can't kill me.

This would mean that you can't go to a hospital because if some dolt was riding a tandem bike and they both cracked their heads I might just be harvested. Who would go to such a hospital?

If I decide to sacrifice myself for 5 others, fine. But each patient that comes to a hospital has its own case, unrelated to others. I can't be going there for a radiography and get tackled down and harvested because, you know, you kind of needed it.

This happens all the time. You don't hack other people apart to save them.

IMO, if you are a doctor and you let someone die for organs, you should be dragged out to a garbage dump and shot. Malpraxis is for those that may redeem themselves. (Dawn of War 40k)

Not to me. In the train scenario, one of them is inoperable and WILL die. If there's a change that the train would derail, then the plot thickens. A 20% chance of derailment on the 5-people carpool suicide lane would kind of make things difficult. I'd still pull it.

Man that's a large post.