Doctors Sick

Patients Dilemma

Stage one of Kohlbergs theory

(Obedience)
The doctor should wait for the patient to die and save the
lives of the other 5 people because he will be blamed for
not being able to save the five patients when there are
available organs from the sixth patient

Stage two of Kohlbergs theory (Selfinterest)

The doctor should wait for the sixth patient to die and
use his organs to save the other 5 because he will be
much happier that he is able to save 5 lives instead of
one.

Stage three of Kohlbergs theory

(Conformity)
The doctor should wait for the sixth patient to die and
use his organs to save the other 5 so that people will
praise him for being able to save 5 lives at once.

Stage 4 of Kohlbergs theory (Law

and order)
The doctor should save the life of the sixth patient
because it is against the law to let a patient die when you
can save him. It is alright to not save the other 5 because
there are no available organs to donate thus it is not
against the law.

Stage 5 of Kohlbergs theory

(Human rights)
The doctor should save the life of the sixth patient
because everyone has the right to live no matter how
small the chance. The doctor also has no right to secretly
let the patient die and use his/her organs to save the
other 5 without his/her consent.

Stage 6 of Kohlbergs theory

(Universal human ethics)
The doctor should save the life of the sixth patient
because saving a human life when you can is the job of a
doctor no matter how important or how much duties you
have to do. Even though the sixth patient can save the
live of the other 5, every life is equal and the sixth
patient does not have an obligation to save the other 5
lives.

Jeremy Bentham and Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism will look at the situation as a whole

Many people are fans of Bentham's view, as it takes
everyone into account, therefore avoids selfishness,
is democratic, and it gives us an exact formula for
working out the most moral thing to do.
With Utilitarianism everyone ends up happier, it is
beneficial to everyone

 Following Benthams theory of Utilitarianism, the doctor

should use the sixth patient to save the other 5.
Utilitarian reasoning is all based on the greatest good
for the greatest amount of people. Yes, the family of the
sixth patient would feel not satisfied, but the other 5
patients are saved and benefited from the sixth patient,
would have much more long-term joy, the five was they
can live longer. All the long-term pleasure is enough to
'cancel out' the initial pain caused in this situation

Immanuel Kant and Kantian Ethics

Kant's theory was different to Bentham's as he

did not look at whole situation as once, and did
not treat people as a means to an end.
Kant valued life and would treat everyone as an
individual, and not just as a number
Kant believed that actions are intrinsically right or
wrong, regardless of the consequences. Kantians
stress the importance of duty and good intentions

 Following Kants theory of Kantian ethics, the doctor

should save the life of the sixth patient. Kant, unlike
Benthamwould save the life of the sixth patient, as not
saving a patients life is a morally bad action and
against doctor ethics, no matter the intentions. Kant
would not look at the situation as a whole, and would
not take into account the overall pain and overall
pleasure caused by the action. He would only look at
the action itself, which normally is considered a 'bad' or
morally wrong thing to do. He argues that if it is right
for one patient to die, it should be right for any patient
to die, as the action should be considered alone, and
the circumstances cannot change how moral the action

Joseph Fletcher and Situation Ethics

The morality of an action depended on the

situation, and Fletcher invented the theory of
Situation Ethics, a set of general principles which
could apply differently in different situations
There are no fixed rules about numbers or about
the value of life

 Following Fletcher's theory of Situation Ethics, it is

argued that the only way of deciding if the action is
moral or immoral, is by looking at the circumstances
and all the variables. Situation Ethicists would look at
who the sixth patient is, who the other five patients are,
how desperate the organs are needed and so on. He
would then weigh all these against each other and then
come to a form final decision on the matter. This
meaning that the answer could vary, maybe if the
doctor took another patients organ or other
alternatives to an organ transplant the outcome
could've been different.

Thomas Aquinas and Natural Law

Aquinas created the Natural Law theory by using

Aristotle's philosophy
Aristotle said that good humans were those who fulfilled
the purpose of human life, just as a good pencil case is
one that holds all your things well.
It is still a set rule one should follow to deem what is
right, like Kant and Benthams theories, but is also more
flexible and adjustable, like Fletchers ideas

 Following Aquinas theory of Natural Law, the doctor should save the
sixth patient. As letting a patient die is not a 'natural' doctor function,
Aquinas would've deemed it as immoral. The doctor did not 'have' to wait
for the patient to die and use his organs secretly. If he really needed to
save the other five patients and he thought the other five patients
needed the transplant badly, he could've asked organs donation from
family members, or asked directly the sixth patient for his permission. If
the doctor could not afford to donate his organs himself or ask a family
member, he could've asked from other hospitals, or not have saved the
five patients at all. The doctor did not have to let the patient die to get
his organs and Aquinas would agree as it is definitely nota necessary
doctor process. If the doctor waited for the sixth patient to die and later
found out the sixth patients organs are not compatible or suitable to the
other five patients bodies, he could not save even one life