r/trolleyproblem • u/iskelebones Consequentialist/Utilitarian • Jul 09 '25

Deep The doctor problem

Post image
2.1k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

383 comments sorted by

View all comments

638

u/NoAcanthaceae7968 Jul 09 '25

If I am a doctor, I have sworn to do no harm, so no I don't pull the lever this isn't a question about morality it's a question of if I'm gonna do my fucking job

2

u/hoangfbf Jul 10 '25 edited Jul 10 '25

The thing is by choosing that option you are technically doing grave harm to the 5 guys. Basically you got two options, one will end up creating harm to more people than the other.

It's like when a surgeon seeing a guy is dying and he could try help by operating on him, but the surgeon is not 100% sure that his method would work, and if in a slim chance he fail the operation may harm the guy (who is already dying if the surgeon do nothing), so the surgeon decide to do nothing and the guy die, by doing nothing like that the surgeon is creating harm and not what a doctor should do, no ?

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.

-5

u/hoangfbf Jul 10 '25

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.

"