A person in this situation would probably only have at most five minutes to quickly decide what to do with the situation at hand. The person does not have enough time to think of a potential solution that would save everyone. Or maybe the person might not be thinking of a logical, morally acceptable solution at all. The person is probably thinking as a whole -- how does he save the majority? On the other hand, in the transplant case there seems to be more time to weigh various options and solutions. Most notably there is more time to decide on the best course of action, which leads to …show more content…
In the trolley problem, it is reasonable to believe that the person driving is on a set path. He cannot go off the set path and head in another direction. If he did decide to turn and kill one person, the cause of death on the death certificate would be that he was hit by trolley; however, in the transplant case, if the doctor killed one person, the death would be classified as homicide. This begs the question of whether the trolley or trolley driver was actually in control of the deaths in the situation. Most people would probably argue that the trolley hit the person, which ultimately caused the death of a passer. In the transplant case, there would be more guilt assigned to the doctor than to the weapon used. The doctor, if he chose to kill, would have to thoroughly plan to kill the person which makes the doctor more in control than the trolley