The Survival Lottery - Essay Example

The Survival Lottery Conventionally, it has been known and accepted generally that killing and letting die, have a distinction. This has been routed in morality and is considered a moral issue in the society and has been anchored in traditional norms. It assumes that no one has the right to take any life, and that if all that could be done say to an unhealthy person has been done and there are no signs of recovery or improvement, then the person can be left to die, and that would be no crime. In the medical profession, a doctor who allows a patient to die when they could have saved the situation, are regarded as killer because they have gone against their professional ethics. However, as the survival lottery story suggests, people tend to use different arguments to enhance their missions about ending the life of an individual. This essays discusses the morals enhanced by John Harris in his quest to permit taking of life through the survival lottery, a situation where medical practitioners make tough decisions. Traditionally, a challenge has been faced in utilizing good consequences or natural occurrences which seem to suggest that if two people are nearly dying, but one can save the life of the other, then it is legit to take that life to save another as noted by Willard, (55). However, this goes against our innate beliefs that it is inappropriate to take an innocent life. So, that exposes a problem with the utilitarian rule, unless of course it can be otherwise stated. Harris, tries to use this rule in a different way, a way of experimenting and debunking a given belief. Traditional beliefs advocate for letting nature take its course in cases of death and that no one should be allowed to take away life. Different communities around the globe have different beliefs regarding life and this is a big challenge for the realization of the survival lottery aims as shown by Harris. John Harris proposed the thought experiment, survival lottery in a bid to dispute this belief that there is a difference between killing and letting die. He proposes that if the utilitarian rule is otherwise stated, then it would leave room to kill one in order to save two lives (Willard 55). The basic question asked to people in the experiment is to imagine whether organ donation would be expected to save more lives than it would kill. Ideally, all the people are given a number, they are then cast in to a common pool and one of them is drawn out whenever an organ donation is needed. If your number is drawn, then you are expected to give up your life, to save two. This is a very difficult situation and a scary one, because no one is freely willing to give up life even if they had agreed to a given process of choosing who dies to save another person from an ailment. He argues that, for example, two people, let’s name person one A and person two B are dying; one needs a lung transplant while the other needs a heart transplant. If a person who was recently deceased were a donor, A and B, could be saved, in that, they would both receive the transplants they wanted like heart and lung from the deceased person. He then asks the question, ‘why not kill a viable donor and save A and B as the medical procedures to save them are available.’ In other medical treatments, a doctor’s failure to save life is considered to be killing, so, by refusing to kill an innocent donor, for the necessary organs he chooses to kill A and B. This is a complicated situation for the doctor, in any instance, death will have to occur, and this is against the traditional norms of killing an individual. There are two fundamental questions to killing one to save two; ‘how does the doctor choose who to kill?’ making this decision is the most difficult dilemma for the medical practitioners because they are not sure if they will end up making the right decision on who to kill and who to save. This is within a range of suitable donors and the objection rises that it is not fair to the innocent person that is killed. If doctors were able to solve this puzzle easily, then deciding on who will die first will not be a big deal and the survival lottery would be a reality to many people. The other question/ objection is the terror that the victim experiences, together with those watching and the society at large. So what if there was a rule that eliminates these problems and brings forth benefits that outweigh them? (Pearson, 2). The doctors have to factor the societal view of their decision, such as, will their decision be accepted by the society, what about other medical practitioners in case of a wrong decision? What about the fear of the victims? How easily can it be managed? This fundamental questions define the most trying times of a medical practitioner. This is because their view in the society would be based on the decision they make on the particular regarding killing to save another person who could also die in the process of saving life. John Harris proposes the survival lottery to answer to this kind of dilemma. He argues that it puts everyone at risk of being chosen, so that there could be a computer that randomly chooses any from the list of viable donors, and that the plan increases everyone’s chances of living. Organ donation would no longer depend on the few people who agree to be donors and that those who do not agree to the plan would be considered as murderers. However, technology cannot be lied on hundred percent basis, and this is also a bigger challenge. It is important to note the computers operate from a database, which is designed and updated by human beings, despite the fact the artificial intelligence has changed things in the technology circles. He asks further how we could object to the process if we were able to observe it work in another planet, and states that to them who would be putting the plan into practice, ours would seem to be cruel (Harris, 39).The survival lottery experiment is based on several assumptions. It assumes that each life killed is of equal value to the other that is allowed to die naturally, two lives saved are better than the one life that is lost to save them, the quality of two lives is shown when two unhealthy lives are cured or helped sufficiently, by the life of one healthy person lost, and that two lives would be able to survive for a long period on transplanted organs (Hohoff et al 56). Several objections to the survival lottery are bound to arise, as it’s the nature of human beings to object anything even if it’s of their benefit. To the argument that it reduces security, the response would be that it does not and that people need reeducation on what offers them security and what does not offer them security. Security is an important aspect in human life, and everyone needs to feel secure before they adopt to new technologies and changes. The survival lottery must be seen to give security to people in regard to their lives in order for it to be wholly accepted by everyone. When it is said that the survival lottery causes one to play God, then to that it would be said that the same would cause us to stop carrying out the transplants, as after all, it would be his decision as to who lives and who doesn’t (Kuhse 35). Killing is considered worse than letting die, so it would be better to let A and B die. To this the response would be that other types of in action are considered like types of killing. Why would that be an exception? (Refusing to help A and B) The survival lottery can be seen to make a high demand on us, forcing us to be ‘saints’ in giving up our lives when we want to live and imploring on the right to self-defense. With the same argument though, it can be argued that both A and B have a right to kill in self-defense, and can be given that right by agreeing to the lottery. (Harris 45) The distress and fear that would be created by the lottery to the people is also an objection that could rise. But to this would be the imploration to view the long term benefits that terror and distress would be for a while, and would end with time and education. The question of who decides who to kill and who to save would also be a bone of contention, with it being argued that third parties cannot decide this and that only those who are going to die should be put in the lottery. This assumes that people who are ill have lives being of lesser value than the others. In conclusion, the survival lottery is John Harris’ way of trying to rephrase the utilitarian rule in order to permit taking of life. It is his contribution to the discussion on whose life is of lesser value than the other and his attempt to go against the conventions to give a lasting solution to a common question. Harris’ is an example of people who use a given situation to suit their goals or complete a given mission. He uses the survival lottery to demonstrate how it is easy to get a chance of doing away with life of an individual. Works Cited Ethics and Economics: Willard Gaylin . New York, N.Y: Films Media Group, 2005. Internet resource. Harris, John. Bioethics . New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Print. Hohoff, Christian, Rainer W. Fassbinder, Peter Chatel, Karlheinz Böhm, Harry Baer, and Peer Raben. Faustrecht Der Freiheit: Fox and His Friends Survival of the Fittest [dvd] . New York, NY: Wellspring Media ; Rainer Werner Fassbinder Foundation, 2002. Kuhse, Helga, and Peter Singer. Bioethics: An Anthology . Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub, 2006. Print. Tittle, Peg. What If: Collected Thought Experiments in Philosophy . New York: Pearson/Longman, 2005. Print. Read More