Dilemma ( Part II )

You can read part 1 on the following link: Dilemma ( Part I )

In Part I, I asked you to answer a question. 
Basically, the idea was that you had to decide between releasing someone into the general population who is infected with some virus which would kill thousands of people or kill him yourself, thereby saving millions but having to murder someone yourself. One of the major points of the question though also included the fact that the person was very willing to go back, no matter the consequences. Another one was that your actions would not be known by anyone but you. You're also supposed to consider that you are a doctor and have sworn an oath to save the lives of your patients.


"Release Him"
This part of the thread is for people who decided to release the person. The reason such people usually give are the following:
- I will not murder someone else as it goes against everything I believe.
- I would want to murder him, but I do not believe I would be able to do it. (If someone else does it, that's ok though) 
- Murdering is wrong/Pure Pacifism
- What the person does after he leaves my care is not my trouble. I am supposed to 'do no harm' first and foremost.
- I cannot be responsible for actions taken by all other people in the world, I need to heed my own ones and I have done all I can.


There probably would be a few more, but these relate to most of them. 
For these people I would like to ask a similar question, except that now your family lives in the patients hometown and some of your family members are part of Group A, the group that would die if he were to return home. Would you now act any differently ?


"Kill Him!"

This part of the thread is for people who decided to kill the person. The reason such people usually give are the following:

- Since the person knows he is going to be hurting people if he comes back, he is basically murdering them and so I am justified to murder him.

- Numbers. How many people would die if he went back and how many would die if he would not. Since the number is greater if he were to go back, it is justified to murder him.

These two are the most probable answers people would give to kill the patient.

To these people I would like to show them an excerpt of the modern version of the oath of Hippocrates, which is an oath doctors prescribe to in the US and in some other places in the world:

"I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God." - source: Hippocratic Oath

Or another one would be the "Physician's Oath" in the Declaration of Geneva:

 "I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity; the health of my patient will be my first consideration" - source: Physician's Oath

Does this not mean that as a doctor, you should not be the one who decides on the faith of others ? Your one and only task is to take care of your own patient ? As a doctor, your task is to be dedicated to life only. 
Would this not mean you would be in breach of two of the most widely used oaths which esteem the life of the patient as its main consideration?


Looking forward to hearing some responses here.
Isn't thinking just amazing ?

Dilemma ( Part I )

I have been thinking about something. It's kind of weird to think about something like this, but let me put it out there anyway.
I will present a dilemma and all the information I'm giving you is what you're going to get. The options are two in number, which is also why it is called a dilemma. You do not get any other choices.


The Problem
You are a doctor and have patient, who is a carrier of a certain type of disease. This disease will not kill your patient, but can kill and will with very high likelihood kill all people of a certain group, which we would call group A. Everyone who is not in group A, is immune to this disease ( they may become carriers themselves though ). The group who is immune is called group B. 
You have been the patient's doctor for years and have been trying to find a cure for it. Nothing has worked and now the hospital is telling you that you have to release him back to the place he comes from. 
Your patient's hometown has 30 thousand inhabitants. 10 thousand of them are of group A and will thus most likely die if he returns to his town. Your patient wants to live and as such will not commit suicide, basically condemning group A to die if he were to return.


The Options
As you can see, releasing the guy back home would kill ten thousand people. The choice that falls before you is to either : 
- Release him and 10 thousand people would die in the following year, leaving only twenty thousand people alive in his hometown.
- Kill him by injecting untraceable poison into his blood. This would save those ten thousand people. No one would know it was you.


What would you do ?


This is another thing I guess most of you have not thought of, but the idea is simple. Are you willing to murder someone by your own hands to save others ? Or is murdering someone else too wrong to even consider and that the life of this person is sacred ? That by murdering the person, you become no better than them ?
I am putting up a poll up. It's on the right-hand side of the page. It would be nice to know what people think. If you want to, you can even elaborate on your position in the comments below the post.


Part II can now be found here.