Today i had a Critical Thinking lesson and was asked this question that i want to share with you.
What would you do if....
There was a normal guy or lady, that has the cure for cancer in his/her blood but if you take the blood out, the person will die straight way. (There is no age at this moment...its up to you how old the person old)
1)Would you kill this person for the cure for others
We are not here to play God, decide who lives and who dies for a perceived notion of greater good -- we are here to preserve life, and if we can't by our scientific means available, then to provide comfort and supportive care..
Then we are playing god...i mean the doctors. If it was my destiny to have a an hole in the heart, then i should ive left it...let nature takes its course... or when they switch the life machine...they playing god arent they?
Then we are playing god...i mean the doctors. If it was my destiny to have a an hole in the heart, then i should ive left it...let nature takes its course... or when they switch the life machine...they playing god arent they?
Playing God denotes taking away an innocent life on purpose and for no just cause 'see the Quran' on such a matter of jurisprudence!
This question simply asks people to shut away their mentation but not for the purpose of though provocation but for a nonsensical notion that doesn't in fact exist.. it is an exercise in futility!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Playing God denotes taking away an innocent life on purpose.
Hmm...Yeah i agree with that. i didnt see it that way.
but wat im trying to say is that we have a chance to save a lot of people but kill one person for the good on a numours people? itsnt that good...
okay lets chance it...what if the person 85 and in her/his final years of their lives? would u still get the cure and then kill or leave him and let him die in his on accord?
Hmm...Yeah i agree with that. i didnt see it that way.
but wat im trying to say is that we have a chance to save a lot of people but kill one person for the good on a numours people? itsnt that good...
okay lets chance it...what if the person 85 and in her/his final years of their lives? would u still get the cure and then kill or leave him and let him die in his on accord?
No, it isn't good, you have to also understand that in spite of the medicine I know, I whole heartedly believe that folks die when they are meant to die -- I had an argument with a prof. of mine once, on how he feels the strides we have made in (ALL) therapy, rendered 95% effective in children who would have otherwise died, and the science is great, but Allah swt allowed us that knowledge simply because these individuals weren't meant to die at 8 or 11 but at 87 or 43.. in other words these are the instruments of God, through knowledge he gave mankind.
if a kid has Leukemia and is meant to die at 13, even though some therapies are considered close to curative, then he'll die maybe not of leukemia but of a car accident, a drowning in the pool, a gunshot wound or whatever.
we don't delude ourselves into thinking we are the givers or takers of life. We understand our limitations, we help people with what we know and do the best we can and make strides, but science is a gift from Allah swt meant as an accompaniment and a tool of all that we are.. we are not mere physical beings!
you don't lose your ethical motive because you've stumbled upon one exit!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Today i had a Critical Thinking lesson and was asked this question that i want to share with you.
What would you do if....
There was a normal guy or lady, that has the cure for cancer in his/her blood but if you take the blood out, the person will die straight way. (There is no age at this moment...its up to you how old the person old)
1)Would you kill this person for the cure for others
or
2)Would let him live?
what do you thnk?
think about it nd let me no!!
tke care people...
Very hard question! Both responses entail guilt, 1) guilt of killing one person or 2)guilt for practically being responsible for the deaths of millions because you did not do anything.
But even then i wouldn't kill the miracle cancer cure person because i'm just not capable of killing, even if it for good, i couldn't live with it. But then again you see cancer sufferers and the difficulties faced by families too.. not being able to stop that.. hmm.. would make you feel very very bad.
The believer has four characteristics: if he is afflicted by any misfortune, he remains patient and steadfast. If he is given anything, he is grateful. If he speaks , he speaks the truth. If he passes judgment on any issue,he is just .
No, it isn't. following medical ethics is as important as practicing medicine. You can't let go of one for the sake of the others.. those who do are outcasts and shunned by the rest of the medical community and in all likely-hood lose their license and end up in jail.. again your job is to preserve life not take it away...
for more on the matter, you may purchase:
if anything outside of that it will not be decided by a doctor but by a court of law!
all the best
Thank you for the book suggestion.
I find medical ethics fascinating!
Can we go back to the OP's original hypothesis for a bit?
Is there any point at all at which medicine may consider taking the cure-bearer's life?
What if
s/he had explicitly agreed to it and signed all necessary legal consent forms?
s/he had a terminal illness and was dying soon anyway?
s/he was on a life support machine?
I know I am just adding to the original hypothesis, but my question is to what point can we (or can we not) push the boundaries of the Hippocratic oath? (After all, there are doctors who take human lives for a number of reasons ... and usually they would argue in one way or another that they are preventing/reducing human suffering by doing so.) Another question is, should we push those boundaries?
And are rules better when they are set in stone, or should they be flexible?
(So what if I've woken up feeling philosophical?! )
Peace glo
Here I stand.
I can do no other.
May God help me.
Amen.
Come, let us worship and bow down •
and kneel before the Lord our Maker
[Psalm 95]
Are you asking me because you desire to know the status quo or do you desire to re-create medical ethics to suit the question?
if the first then the answer is already given you . I don't know how you operate things in England, I imagine it not to be different than the rest of the world since whether you are sitting for the Plab or the USMLE, you answer in the same fashion whether patho-physiology, diagnosis, management or ethics.. it follows the same pattern the world over!
Your concern is with the immediate and with your patient not some hypothetical (even if true) you don't sacrifice human life.. in fact there are situations when the court itself can force a person against their will to receive treatment and any doctor has the right to detain a patient from 24~48 until such a judicial review makes that decision lawfully legal!
I am not going to discuss a whole course on epidemiology and medical ethics because it is too expansive for our purposes -- and for such reasons medical ethics isn't left to lay men but to a learned committee.. think of it in the same fashion you would Islamic jurisprudence.. lay men fatwa, random opinions, hold very little value when there is a whole science to it and cases that have defined things for us as they are currently..
Things likeTuskegee Study, Roe v. Wade is, the Tarasoff decision and numerous others now dictate the way everything is run, from
confidentiality, release of information, when a patient is competent and when he has lost that capacity, law of double effect, risk management, medical errors, abortion, contraception, reach and participation consent, autonomy, emancipation, gifts and industry funding, terminal sedation etc etc..
there really isn't an area that can arise that hasn't been answered, and no killing someone for 'the greater good' I assure you wouldn't pose a medical dilemma, the answer is quite obvious, including patient wishes that are at odds with physician moral ethics, a doctor has a right to refuse performing procedures he/she doesn't agree too, although a doctor is held liable by law not to abandon a patient, he/she must find a suitable doctor to take on the care of such a patient but is under no legal obligation to perform something that is at odds with personal ethics!
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Islamicaly if we knew that a certain action will kill us , then that is prohibited. In no way can one kill himself or take his life in his own hands, even if it means saving other lifes, we ar enot allowed to take our lifes , this is exactly why those who commit suicide will not gbe able to eneter the paradise, and in this case if the patient chooses to give his blood for the cure he is basically destroying himself and killing himself , by doing which he will lose the etrenal life.
Verily, there is no disease that Allah has sent down, except that He also has
On the other hand those who have cancer , if they die , They die the natural death , they did not kill themselfes, It was decreed for them to die taht way,
So those who wil die coz of cancer can enter paradise , n this poor guy will never enter coz he killed himself, so WY RISK THE ETRRNAL LIFE FOR SAVING SOME LIFES THAT WILL END EVENTUALLY, WHY RISK IT ALL FOR SOMETHING SO MEANINGLESS? WHY lose the hereafter , for what? giving a couple of extra years to some one, one rather give those cancer patient good advise and fix their creed so they may die upon the truth and be salvaged, and the next life that will never end will be beautiful.
Plus we know that these people if Allah has decreed upon them such a disease and such pain, than God with such affliction remove ones sins and forgives their sins and raises their ranks , so the patients are in a win win situation, their sins are being fogiven just coz they are being put through pain and sufering and their ranks are being raised.
And if its liek an abdomen cancer or anyother abdomen disease the reward can be as big as reward of a martyr.The category of the martyrs of the Hereafter includes those who have died being succumbed to certain types of ailments or calamities, not of their own making such as those killed in accidents, drowned, as well as people who die of an abdominal disease. Some jurists have counted up to thirty kinds of such martyrs, while others state that they are up to forty kinds.
It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The martyrs are five: the one who dies of the plague; the one who dies of stomach trouble (al-mabtoon); the one who drowns; the one who is crushed by a falling wall; and the martyr who dies for the sake of Allaah.”
Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 2674; Muslim, 1914.
In an addition narrated by al-Tirmidhi (1846), Abu Dawood (311) and Ibn Maajah (2803) it says: “… and the one who dies of pleurisy, and the woman who dies together (with her baby).”
Al-Nawawi said: … According to another report: “The plague is martyrdom for every Muslim.”
The scholars of the Standing Committee were asked:
Some people say that a person who dies as the result of a car accident is a martyr and he will have a reward like that of the martyrs. Is this correct or not?
They replied:
We hope that he will be a martyr, because this is like the Muslim who dies under a falling wall. It was narrated in a saheeh report from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) that such a person is a martyr. Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 8/375.
So back to the topic , Dying is not an issue , everyone has to die , But killing one's self or putting the body in such a situation where death is feared for him or its certain like the sace discussed in the question is not allowed, Why co zit is not allowed for us to take our lifes, for any reason , So the one carrying the cure cannot kilhimself and those dying of cancer , apparently they seem as they are in pain and they are losing their life and they are going through a great affliction but in reality they might be those who are succesful , they might just get all their sins forgiven , they might have their ranks raised high, they are successful , and MOST OF ALL , WHO KNOWS HOW LONG THEY SHALL LIVE, Yes they should be cured , and the researchers should keep on looking for the cure , and try to find a cure for them , we are not saying let them just die, no do all you can to save them but not on teh cost of making some one kill himslf and go to hell just so some one can Live a few More years?!!!
As narrated in a hadith, Rasulullah s.a.w was once asked: “O Rasulullah sala lahu al;ihi wa sallam, do we seek for treatment? Rasulullah replied: “Indeed O servants of Allah, go and seek treatment, all of you. Verily, there is no disease that Allah has sent down, except that He also has sent down its treatment.”
Did u guys not hear about the couple who esacped death in that airfrance flight by being late for the flight had an accident after a few days n the lady died!! what sthe gurantee how long those pateiens will live, will death not come regardless, wil they not be made to stand before Allah.
he (Peace be upon him), says: ‘Whenever a hardship affects the Muslim, he will be forgiven for it even when he is picked by a spike.’ [Muslim]
And in another Hadith, also narrated by Muslim, Ummu as-Sa’ib cursed fever, to which the Prophet (Peace be upon him) told her: ‘Do not curse fever, for it takes away the sins like the blaze [fire] takes away the impurities of iron.’
When the Prophet (S) would enter upon a sick person, he would say:
‘Never mind, may it (the sickness) be a purification, if Allaah wills.’
So these sick people are in reality earning paradise just by being sick , why should one risk his paradise for the sake of them?! dont make no sense to me man.
Yes it is important to save live s, but what is more important than saving this" temporary life" is the next eternal life , in no way whatsoever one should risk that, n may Allah cure all those are sick and make their affairs easy
For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if be had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty) , but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth. (5:32)
Today i had a Critical Thinking lesson and was asked this question that i want to share with you.
What would you do if....
There was a normal guy or lady, that has the cure for cancer in his/her blood but if you take the blood out, the person will die straight way. (There is no age at this moment...its up to you how old the person old)
1)Would you kill this person for the cure for others
or
2)Would let him live?
what do you thnk?
think about it nd let me no!!
tke care people...
there are many perspectives to this.
A) Logically. Yes, it would more logical to kill this person with the cure to cancer as long as he/she saves a whole community of cancer.
B) Morally. Yes and no. Yes because you will be saving hundreds and thousands of other lives; and no because you are shedding the blood of this person who has the cure to cancer which is deemed morally incorrect
C) Scientifically. NO. stepping away from the fact that this question is meant to be hypothetical (imagination), science will deem it incorrect because NO human obviously has the cure to cancer in their blood. And suppose they did, it is impossible to cure EVERYONE terminally il due to the disease and also it depends on which TYPE/FORM of cancer this "pure blood" can cure. Hence, NO, doesn't make sense.
D) lastly, and importantly Religiously (could also be morally worldwide), Yes and no. No, obviously because you cannot KILL somebody or take ones own life (suicide) as it not permissible in Islam, HOWEVER, if this person willingly decides to end his/her life in order to SAVE others lives then to the contrary, it is allowed as a way of "Jihad" (struggle in the name of Allah) and ultimately this person would be a "shaheed" (a death due to the struggling in Allah's path). Similar to country soldiers and Military men/women who willingly end their lives (by joined and fighting war at the country borders) to save their countires. They are also "shaheed." BUT AT THE SAME TIME, if this person DOES NOT WILLINGLY WANT TO end HIS/HER life for others, than it is not permissible in Islam.
But then again, this is literally just my opinion, I am NO scholar so please do not quote me. I am a learning Muslim just like you.
Today i had a Critical Thinking lesson and was asked this question that i want to share with you.
What would you do if....
There was a normal guy or lady, that has the cure for cancer in his/her blood but if you take the blood out, the person will die straight way. (There is no age at this moment...its up to you how old the person old)
1)Would you kill this person for the cure for others
or
2)Would let him live?
what do you thnk?
think about it nd let me no!!
tke care people...
The way the question is phrased is something that i dont really agree with..
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
What would you do? (OP)
)
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks