The Survival Lottery is where there is two dying patients and they both need an organ transplant. There are no spare organs to do the transplant for either X or Y, both are not happy they are being left to die. Y needs a new heart and Z needs new lungs This article comes up with an idea that there should be a lottery. This is where if there are patients that are needing organs, but the hospital does not have any in stock, then they will do a lottery system. They will have everyone’s names in the system, so a person will be chosen randomly. The person that is chosen randomly could be perfectly healthy. However, according to this new lottery system they will be the one that dies and the surgeon will use the chosen person’s organs to save X and
…show more content…
274). The DDA is against The Survival Lottery. The DDA is okay with someone passively dying, but they say we should not take someone else’s life on purpose. It is harder to justify of harming than letting die. I also would not want anyone else to die to save my life because we would be playing God. There is a reason why I am needing organs and the hospital does not have any to give me. I wouldn’t want to think that I am ruining a healthy person’s life and their families because I am dying and they have the organ that I need. According to The Survival Lottery, “Many philosophers have various reasons believed that we must not kill even if by doing so we could save a life” (John Harris, p. 81) They can see that killing a healthy person is wrong to save two other people’s life. X and Y have a reason why their organs are malfunctioning. We may not know why but the person of higher power, God or anyone else you believe in knows the reason. I also do not think that people who smoke, drink and do …show more content…
The lottery system is not moral and cannot be justified. People may say that saving two people is better than one, that may be true but in reality, killing someone that is perfectly happy and healthy off this earth just to use their organs is wrong. To the reader since I agree with the DDA’s objection to the survival lottery I have been asked if I think that active euthanasia is worse than passive euthanasia, my answer is yes. Before I explain my reasons, here are the definitions of both terms- “Active Euthanasia is taking a direct action to kill someone, to carry out a ‘mercy killing’. Passive Euthanasia is allowing someone to die by not doing something-by withholding or withdrawing measures necessary for sustaining a life” (Vaughn, 2016, p. 265). Active Euthanasia is intentionally killing someone. Another look at active euthanasia is murder. It is ethically, wrong. An example of active euthanasia is that an 85-year-old man who has level four prostate cancer. The doctor does not believe that the man will ever be cancer free. He does not think that the chemotherapy or radiation will help. He believes that this man is too old to actually ever recover from this. The doctor thinks that this 85-year-old man is better off dead than alive. Therefore, the doctor takes if upon his self to over dose this cancer patient with pain killers to kill him off the
274). The DDA is against The Survival Lottery. The DDA is okay with someone passively dying, but they say we should not take someone else’s life on purpose. It is harder to justify of harming than letting die. I also would not want anyone else to die to save my life because we would be playing God. There is a reason why I am needing organs and the hospital does not have any to give me. I wouldn’t want to think that I am ruining a healthy person’s life and their families because I am dying and they have the organ that I need. According to The Survival Lottery, “Many philosophers have various reasons believed that we must not kill even if by doing so we could save a life” (John Harris, p. 81) They can see that killing a healthy person is wrong to save two other people’s life. X and Y have a reason why their organs are malfunctioning. We may not know why but the person of higher power, God or anyone else you believe in knows the reason. I also do not think that people who smoke, drink and do …show more content…
The lottery system is not moral and cannot be justified. People may say that saving two people is better than one, that may be true but in reality, killing someone that is perfectly happy and healthy off this earth just to use their organs is wrong. To the reader since I agree with the DDA’s objection to the survival lottery I have been asked if I think that active euthanasia is worse than passive euthanasia, my answer is yes. Before I explain my reasons, here are the definitions of both terms- “Active Euthanasia is taking a direct action to kill someone, to carry out a ‘mercy killing’. Passive Euthanasia is allowing someone to die by not doing something-by withholding or withdrawing measures necessary for sustaining a life” (Vaughn, 2016, p. 265). Active Euthanasia is intentionally killing someone. Another look at active euthanasia is murder. It is ethically, wrong. An example of active euthanasia is that an 85-year-old man who has level four prostate cancer. The doctor does not believe that the man will ever be cancer free. He does not think that the chemotherapy or radiation will help. He believes that this man is too old to actually ever recover from this. The doctor thinks that this 85-year-old man is better off dead than alive. Therefore, the doctor takes if upon his self to over dose this cancer patient with pain killers to kill him off the