Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I previously asked this question on Reddit; thus, here goes:
Here is a purely hypothetical scenario for you:
The state/government literally gives you a choice between removing one of your healthy fingers and stripping you of $1 million (as in, in addition to whatever money it takes from you in taxes) throughout your lifetime (the pace/rate of this will depend on your salary, et cetera throughout your lifetime). Also, assume that, purely hypothetically, we have become a dictatorship and the U.S. Constitution was amended to allow such atrocious behavior on the part of the U.S. government.
Anyway, in such a scenario, would it be unethical for doctors to remove one of your healthy fingers (with your full consent, of course)?
I think the whole thing is silly and out of place.
No, not really; after all, sometimes hypothetical scenarios help us think and analyze things better (such as with Judith Jarvis Thomson's Violinist scenario in regards to abortion).
No, not really; after all, sometimes hypothetical scenarios help us think and analyze things better (such as with Judith Jarvis Thomson's Violinist scenario in regards to abortion).
A million dollars? That's a very good deal, considering the government only pays on the average $30,000 for a finger now for low to middle income workers.
ARTICLE 1. / Workers' Compensation Act / Section §97-31. Schedule of injuries; rate and period of compensation.
In cases included by the following schedule the compensation in each case shall be paid for disability during the healing period and in addition the disability shall be deemed to continue for the period specified, and shall be in lieu of all other compensation, including disfigurement, to wit:
For the loss of a thumb, sixty-six and two-thirds percent (66 2/3%) of the average weekly wages during 75 weeks. For the loss of a first finger, commonly called the index finger, sixty-six and two-thirds percent (66 2/3%) of the average weekly wages during 45 weeks.
Let's say one makes $1000/wk. this means "the government" will reimburse you: .66666 x 1000 (666.66) x 45 = $30,000.
The doctor's doing you a favor, what have you decided to do?
(If you posted this on Reddit, the answers probably came back in reference to what you're new Sexual Market Value is now, with only 9 fingers. I don't know what formula they use for that, though. )
A million dollars? That's a very good deal, considering the government only pays on the average $30,000 for a finger now for low to middle income workers.
No, they don't pay you a million dollars.
You pay THE GOVERNMENT a million dollars to keep your finger.
That is why this is such a stupid, pointless post.
It was also poorly written which makes it difficult to understand.
You either let a doctor hack off one of your healthy fingers or you pay Uncle Sam $1 million to keep it.
...
I previously asked this question on Reddit; thus, here goes:
Anyway, in such a scenario, would it be unethical for doctors to remove one of your healthy fingers (with your full consent, of course)?
Indeed, any thoughts on this?
As medical ethics stand today in the US, no doctor should consent to mutilating a patient - consenting or not. As I recall, the thrust of the Hippocratic Oath is Do no harm. You might be able to get a veterinarian to do so (although they have a code of ethics too), or butchers, or more likely, the people @ slaughterhouses who actually kill the animals. Otherwise, no, you might have to resort to DIY.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.