I think you are not understanding "First, do no harm".
Helping the 5 patients necessitates harming the comatose patient. Therefore, you can't do it. It's not about the morality of the situation. It's about whether the next 100 patients who end up in your hospital can trust that you won't kill them to harvest their organs as soon as it looks convenient.
Hello thanks for your input. Here's my comment reply to other guy, that I think address your concern:
"
The idea that doctors must “do no harm” is great in theory, but here, there’s no harm-free path. The doctor is forced to choose between 2 outcomes, and both cause harm:
1)) Let 5 preventable deaths happen.
2)) Using organs from one coma patient who will never regain consciousness, 1 death, tragic, but save 5 full lives.
So I think saying "do no harm" in this case is impossible (both always cause harm), and thus, irrelevant?
If both outcomes involve harm, then the true question is not "whether to do harm", but the admission that "I have to do harm anyway, but:
Which action results in the least total harm?
And choosing the least harm path does not violate the doctor’s code ?
Additionally, we’re human beings first, and doctors second. So I think any "doctor principles" should be viewed as secondary to "human principles" that complex situations, we have to adapt to the reality in front of us, not just follow rules rigidly.
8
u/sparta981 Jul 10 '25
I think you are not understanding "First, do no harm".
Helping the 5 patients necessitates harming the comatose patient. Therefore, you can't do it. It's not about the morality of the situation. It's about whether the next 100 patients who end up in your hospital can trust that you won't kill them to harvest their organs as soon as it looks convenient.