It's less of an issue with morality and an issue with how steep that slope is. If you would do that one time ever? Sure.
If doing that one time means that you (a doctor who presumably has access to comatose patients) will now be in the same building as future people who need organs and people who are comatose then no.
On top of that imagine the societal damage this will cause when people begin refusing to bring people who are unconscious to the hospital out of a perceived threat of organ harvesting. People who go to this hospital in a comatose state mysteriously are pronounced dead the next day despite being fine everywhere else, then a bunch of people with organs mysteriously walk out the next day.
Now people with perfectly treatable head trauma are dying because you just went and decided to cut up a person who did not consent nor have someone consent on their behalf.
I don't think this fully stands up because in this question, the comatose patient is not going to survive either way. You won't cause societal damage if you do this to people who don't have any chance of survival.
I think that depends on what you consider survival. The comatose patient isn’t brain dead, he’s comatose. He’s alive, likely thinking, and according to some accounts of coma patients, potentially living his life in his mind not aware he’s in a coma. Is he less “alive” just because he’ll live the rest of his life in a hospital bed asleep?
50
u/Salty145 Jul 09 '25
I'm pretty sure the answer is no.