# You can cure all cancer globally but 10 innocent people must die **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 7, 2015, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436 "2015-05-07T00:39:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/81 "2015-05-11T07:48:07Z")
How would you deal with the transplant issue? There are more people who need them than there are organs? Remember the 2-bit punk who died in a crime after being given a heart (for which he was not qualified)? How about Mickey Mantle? Generally, liver transplants require the recipient to have stopped drinking. Unless you are a famous baseball player, apparently. All you people who can’t imagine telling somebody: “You have to die so others may live” (where have I heard that before?) sould not be involved in making medical decisions. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/82 "2015-05-11T08:00:40Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > So you’d rather murder millions upon millions of people in order to feel less morally conflicted? I’m not murdering anyone. As I said, those people were already slated to die. > [@](#): > > Yes. I would have to, morally, because in that scenario I’d be saving a net of two lives. I’d have to suffer the consequences, but a lot of males in my genetic heritage have had to suffer similar consequences for outcomes which were much less clear. By that logic, we should just give in to terrorists demands so they’ll stop suicide bombing us. Look, let’s follow your "morality “to it’s logical conclusion. If Mr. Genius doctor guy addressed the President and the members of congress and said: 'Guys! Great news! I can cure cancer! The thing is, I’ll need a thousand people with these very rare genetic markers. The thing is, these people will die in the process, and the markers are so rare, it’s highly improbable you’ll find a thousand volunteers. So, if you want this cure, you’ll probably have to take them by force.” Now, do you really want to live in a draconian world where your government would consider doing this? I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/83 "2015-05-11T14:36:19Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > It’s easy to say let 10 strangers die. They’re “not us”. Why do you all think the 10 are going to be on board with this? Why are you so willing to sacrifice strangers? They’re not strangers to the ones they love. Why do you think you get to live and not them? > > The question needs to be, “would you die to cure cancer?” Only\*\* Anaamika \*\*seems willing to volunteer. I was volunteering to shoot them. I do not volunteer to die for them. Sorry, this life is all I get, and there is literally no one in this world I will die for. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/84 "2015-05-11T16:41:57Z")
I’m not sure why option A isn’t far and away the winner. They gave their consent, they’re grown people, and if they’re serving life without parole, any disruption to their families or loved ones is effectively already been done (they may not be dead, but their ability to interact is seriously curtailed). Plus, their deaths will both serve mankind and enrich their families. Why in the world WOULDN’T you pick the prisoners, and instead, randomly visit death on 10 random people? You might be wiping out innocent 3 year olds, babies, loving mothers, grandfathers and hard-working fathers. You could be destroying families, workplaces, etc… None of which is the case when we’re talking about prisoners with no hope of parole. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/85 "2015-05-11T19:26:39Z")
> [@Shakes](#): > > I’m not murdering anyone. As I said, those people were already slated to die. But you could save them, and you chose not to, so you are responsible for killing them. It’s like saying that you aren’t responsible for your dog’s death just because you failed to feed it. You didn’t break its neck, but your inaction caused its death just the same. > [@](#): > > By that logic, we should just give in to terrorists demands so they’ll stop suicide bombing us. No. That doesn’t follow at all. > [@](#): > > If Mr. Genius doctor guy addressed the President and the members of congress and said: 'Guys! Great news! I can cure cancer! The thing is, I’ll need a thousand people with these very rare genetic markers. The thing is, these people will die in the process, and the markers are so rare, it’s highly improbable you’ll find a thousand volunteers. So, if you want this cure, you’ll probably have to take them by force." Even if we take this at face value, in your insane world where apparently nobody donates their bodies to science, yes, I would want that to happen in order to save a huge number of lives. Now, I have a question for you: Was ending the Nazi regime worth a single Allied death? ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/86 "2015-05-11T19:57:42Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > But you could save them, and you chose not to, so you are responsible for killing them. > > It’s like saying that you aren’t responsible for your dog’s death just because you failed to feed it. You didn’t break its neck, but your inaction caused its death just the same. You could sell your home computer, most of your clothes and possessions, and save a lot of lives if you donate the money to the right charities. Are you a murderer for not doing that? I haven’t done that, and I don’t feel like a murderer. I mean I’m all for killing 10 to eradicate cancer, absent ironic consequences, but murder and failing to save someone aren’t the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/87 "2015-05-11T20:10:03Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > But you could save them, and you chose not to, so you are responsible for killing them. > > It’s like saying that you aren’t responsible for your dog’s death just because you failed to feed it. You didn’t break its neck, but your inaction caused its death just the same. No, feeding my dog doesn’t involve me killing people. It’s what I have to feed my dog is what counts. You could hardly call me a dog killer because I wasn’t willing to send my son into a burning house to save his dog > [@](#): > > No. That doesn’t follow at all. Sure it does, because the only way the OP’s hypothetical happens in the real world, is if some mad man actually DID find a cure but he isn’t going to share it with the world until we kill ten innocent people. > [@](#): > > Even if we take this at face value, in your insane world where apparently nobody donates their bodies to science, yes, I would want that to happen in order to save a huge number of lives. Do you think you could find a thousand people in America named Bob Jones, with red hair and green eyes to voluntarily forfeit their lives? Because I think that’s a fair analogy for finding people with _very rare specific markers_ as I stated in my earlier hypothetical. > [@](#): > > Now, I have a question for you: Was ending the Nazi regime worth a single Allied death? You mean the war where both sides were armed and all knew exactly what they were signing up for when they enlisted? Sure, I’m fine with that. I know the draft was around back then, and I’m not fine with that. Never have been. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/88 "2015-05-11T23:25:38Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I’m not sure why option A isn’t far and away the winner. They gave their consent, they’re grown people, and if they’re serving life without parole, any disruption to their families or loved ones is effectively already been done (they may not be dead, but their ability to interact is seriously curtailed). Plus, their deaths will both serve mankind and enrich their families. > > Why in the world WOULDN’T you pick the prisoners, and instead, randomly visit death on 10 random people? You might be wiping out innocent 3 year olds, babies, loving mothers, grandfathers and hard-working fathers. You could be destroying families, workplaces, etc… Instead…? You do realize that you could have picked an answer for each scenario, right? That’s what most of us did, not picked an answer in just the scenario that was better. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2015, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/89 "2015-05-12T00:05:21Z")
> [@Taber](#): > > You could sell your home computer, most of your clothes and possessions, and save a lot of lives if you donate the money to the right charities. Are you a murderer for not doing that? I haven’t done that, and I don’t feel like a murderer. I mean I’m all for killing 10 to eradicate cancer, absent ironic consequences, but murder and failing to save someone aren’t the same thing. OK, here the difference is between how immediate the consequences are. In the scenario posed by the OP, which (BTW) isn’t an especially weird scenario for an ethics class, there’s a very direct link between killing the people and curing cancer. Donating to a charity is much more removed, with no direct link and an extremely tenuous indirect link to curing cancer. > [@Shakes](#): > > You could hardly call me a dog killer because I wasn’t willing to send my son into a burning house to save his dog I agree. Trading one life for another is extremely difficult to justify, and human lives matter more. > [@](#): > > Sure it does, because the only way the OP’s hypothetical happens in the real world, is if some mad man actually DID find a cure but he isn’t going to share it with the world until we kill ten innocent people. Don’t read more into the hypothetical than is there. Your conclusion is not justified by the information we have. > [@](#): > > Do you think you could find a thousand people in America named Bob Jones, with red hair and green eyes to voluntarily forfeit their lives? Because I think that’s a fair analogy for finding people with _very rare specific markers_ as I stated in my earlier hypothetical. It’s possible. The point is, if you assume every life matters equally, sacrificing a few lives to save many more lives is justifiable. Otherwise, you’ve just said that the lives you refused to sacrifice are worth more than the lives you refused to save. And, something which I’d hoped we’d all come to agree on but which apparently still needs to be said, **refusing to act is still an action, refusing to decide is still a decision.** [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436.md?page=4)