[05sykesd]

How exactly would child A survive for 5 years without lungs?

[syrettd]

(Original post by 05sykesd)
How exactly would child A survive for 5 years without lungs?

Gills?

[cl_steele]

(Original post by 05sykesd)
How exactly would child A survive for 5 years without lungs?

He only donates half a lung sorry

[TenOfThem]

Leave things as they are

It is not my right to make that decision for another person ... not my organ to give

My children are not my possessions

[Xenite]

The first option.


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...

[JamalAhmed]

(Original post by syrettd)
Gills?

Duhh! Is he mad!

[TenOfThem]

Those people who are saying that part of the decision making process is based on the suffering of child A

Would you simply terminate the life of child A to stop the suffering

What is child A suffered more after the operation how would that affect your decision

[JamalAhmed]

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.

At these situations there needs to be a mediator.

[.Scout.]

I would 100% do nothing.
Who am I to play God? How could I shorten one of my childrens life in favour of the others?

[Mr Einstein]

I chose the bottom decision as it is something of a non-decision. Which I believe is the only morally correct path as it is not your decision to make. Irregardless of the child's age.

[Smoosh]

I would do nothing.

[King Kebab]

How old are the children in the scenario?

They might be old enough to give their opinions on it?

[cl_steele]

(Original post by King Kebab)
How old are the children in the scenario?

They might be old enough to give their opinions on it?

ummm i cant quite remember how old they were in the show but late teens so perfectly aware of the decision that theyre making

[Salt in the Wounds]

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.

[That Bearded Man]

(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?

[That Bearded Man]

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.

Morally speaking I'd probably leave it as it is.

[cl_steele]

(Original post by That Bearded Man)
Was this the one with the younger brother in a wheelchair and the sister collapsed while rollerskating with him?

Yes that one!

[Rachael]

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?