Desensitizing myself from the situation, here's how I see it:
Leaving it as it is would result in Child B dying swiftly and Child A living in pain for up to a decade. Going ahead with the transplant means that Child B can live a full life and Child A will still live in pain, but for a shorter amount of time. Overall, a life is saved and the length of time for which A has to endure the pain is reduced.
That being said, it's not a decision that I would be comfortable making (were I in the position of the parent) for the obvious moral issues involved...
But then someone will have to carry the guilt of killing child A and that is morally wrong. Also, the scenario never said child A was suffering in pain so if Child A is not suffering in pain and wills to live longer, you are taking his freedom to live in order to satisfy the other party.
I interpreted the question to mean that child A wouldn't be deciding to give their lung themselves (not sure if this was the intended gist so I apologise if that's the case haha), so I voted for the situation to be left as-is. I feel that it should be child A's choice, ultimately, as to what happens. If they could not make the decision themselves, it would not be my place to do so on their behalf, so I would have to go with leaving the situation unchanged.
(Original post by cl_steele)
Another episode, this ones the one where the child needs her brothers lung to survive, parents pass the buck and say they refuse to make a decision and the girl refuses to take her brothers lung anyway but it ends on the brother talking to the sister pleading with her to take it then a damn cliff hanger -_-
Was this the one with the younger brother in a wheelchair and the sister collapsed while rollerskating with him?
I think it depends how sick they are, you say that Child A has 10 years max, I ask what is their quality of life? If they're reasonably healthy then of course not. If they had a very poor standard of living I might consider it.
Personally, if A was able to, I'd explain the situation objectively to A and let them express their opinion (by able to, I mean awake and old enough to talk and know what death is at least to the extent that small children can - given A's condition, I assume this knowledge ought to come very young). If not, which I assume is probably the intended case, I think I'd get them to do the operation.
Out of interest: If you said you'd do nothing, would you still do nothing if the situation was changed such that doing nothing meant that the operation would happen (i.e. child B lives, child A lives a few years less than they otherwise would) but you choose to stop them (so that child A keeps the organ and lives however long they were going to and B dies)?
If your choice in this altered situation would result in the other result to your choice in the initial one - why?