Is it ok to kill someone to cure cancer?

[outdoorsnewzealand]

Just a hypothetical question (for know at least) but imagine a situation where scientists have found that a particular person has something in their brain that can cure cancer, but they will need to cut out their brain to extract the cure. Removing their brain will of course kill them.

Question: Is it ok to kill them?

A couple of interesting ways to think about it:

• What if the person was you?
• What if it was your child?

[Angela]

I'd give those scientists a piece of my mind!

[Lanya]

We can ask permission to use his/her brain when (s)he dies. And then just wait until his/her death (not by murder!).

[Call me Boges]

Yes of course. People have been killed for less (much less).

[WilliWibald]

If the person does agree, I think it's a good thing to do.

If no one agrees, I recommend postponing this action until all other reasonable potential to fight cancer is used to a very high degree:
-drastically lower air pollution
-nearly no consumption of animal protein
-helping people to establish exercise as part of their daily lives
-helping people to stop the consumption of alcohol and other cancerous drugs (tabacco, weed)
-helping people to feel more content (through better ways of thinking and better ways of dealing with their problems)

[Dharma]

Question: Is it ok to kill them?

No.

[*]What if the person was you?


I own guns.


[*]What if it was your child?

See above.

If we cure cancer how will the imbalance of the being then manifest in the body? Will people start exploding? Curing cancer on the outside is nice and all, but the real cure comes from within.

[jenlili]

Originally Posted by Call me Boges

Yes of course. People have been killed for less (much less).

True. But that doesn't make it ok.

[Cristal Lilly]

Originally Posted by Dharma

Question: Is it ok to kill them?

No.

[*]What if the person was you?


I own guns.

[*]What if it was your child?

See above.

to the op:
as for the question, what do you mean by 'is it ok'. is it moral? would we justify it? would we do it? what?
if it's supposed to be asking if it's universally ok (as in universally accepted or agreed with), then hell no, I don't think anything is. eh. I'm too philosophical and borderline OCD to answer such a general question

[oBakasan]

Question: Is it ok to kill them?

Yes.

What if the person was you?

In that case, no.

Furthermore, if I had something in my brain that cured cancer, then it would be correct to assume that I myself am already immune to cancer. In which case my answer would be: HELL NO.

* What if it was your child?

Depends. If he's young and I haven't bonded with him yet then I can just make a new one.

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by WilliWibald

If no one agrees, I recommend postponing this action until all other reasonable potential to fight cancer is used to a very high degree:
-drastically lower air pollution
-nearly no consumption of animal protein
-helping people to establish exercise as part of their daily lives
-helping people to stop the consumption of alcohol and other cancerous drugs (tabacco, weed)
-helping people to feel more content (through better ways of thinking and better ways of dealing with their problems)

Millions will have died before all of that is satisfied

[seanner689]

Sounds like a premise for a new-age zombie flick.

If I, or my wife/child (one day) was dying of cancer and the cure was locked in someone's skull, you'd better believe that I'd want to crack that open. Kill one, save a million. If I had the cure, I think I'd bite the bullet and take one for the team ... it would be pretty cool to go down in history as the guy who cured cancer. Plus, if I had the cure, I have a feeling that it would only be a matter of time before I get whacked either by an angry mob wanting my brains or by big pharma to keep the cure out of the people's hands. At least if I went voluntarily, I could secure a nice nest egg for my family.

[seanner689]

Originally Posted by Elrond

Millions will have died before all of that is satisfied

Exactly ... we can't do that stuff when there's no cure in sight, why would we suddenly achieve this when there's a quick-fix available?

[jtracy]

I think a lot would rest on whether the person, regardless of who it was, is willing to volunteer. If they do, then it is obviously very important for them, and we should respect their wishes. My philosophy on death is that our life on earth is a type of feild trip for the soul in which we have a purpose to perform. If someone's "purpose" is to cure cancer, then a death in this way could very well be his biggest triumph in this life.

I agree with the comment that if we cure cancer that way, then how will the imbalance of the being then manifest in the body? If people are sick, that will find a way to express itself, if not in cancer then in some other way. The ultimate cure comes from your mind and soul, and must be a cure for all disease, not just cancer.

I also agree with the comment that we should postpone this action until all other options are investigated first (such as providing clean air and water, dietary issues (including avoiding drugs and alcohol), and making people happier. (I will say that people have been eating animal protein for thousands of years; I don't beleive that eating animal protein causes cancer at all)

[ns123]

Originally Posted by oBakasan

Depends. If he's young and I haven't bonded with him yet then I can just make a new one.

obakasan, you crack me up! Thanks for the laugh! Just make a new one! Love it!

[InterfaceLeader]

Or... is one person's life worth the same as millions of others?

What if it were a person who could generate enormous value during their life? After all, if they have some sort of 'cancer cure drug' in their brain, I bet they think and act differently too. Maybe they would end up contributing more than every other person out there - combined.

What if, right after they were killed, someone figured out how to create it artificially? Once something is known to be possible, it's amazing how quickly it becomes standardised. With so many well-funded scientists working on a cure, I'm sure that once they had the general gist they could figure it out. There's not THAT many things a brain could produce. And there's lots of ways we can examine a brain to see what's in it without killing the person involved.

Maybe I'm taking this question too literally... but it seems to me there's always alternatives, no matter how black and white something seems. Yes, I do believe that if it's a choice between one life or one million lives, we pick the one million.... but I don't see any way that could actually occur in an absolute sense.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Call me Boges

Yes of course. People have been killed for less (much less).

You have no right to take someone's life for any reason. It's not yours to take.

It doesn't matter anyway because nothing like this will ever happen.

[Akashic_Librarian]

If it wasn't me then yes of course. Kill them. If it was me, then no. I like myself too much.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Personally I do not think it would be ok. I do not think it is ever for one human being (or group) to take the life of another. I especially would be against it as long as the general population are doing so many unhealthy things (as mentioned above).

With that being said, I think if this were a reality and were put to a vote the decision would be to take that one life. I think that so many people are impacted by cancer in some way (they have it, a loved one has it, etc) and so few people would know the individual with the cure that the vote would overwhelmingly be to take the life. That would, of course, be the start down a very slippery slope. Lets say the next situation was to take 1 life to save 100,000? Then 1 life to save 1,000, etc. Where would society choose to draw the line?

I also would like to point out that this isn't a new concept. We already live in a world in which certain people/groups are deciding to risk some lives in order to save others (or to save money). Evidence of this include pre-emptive wars (Iraq) or cost-analysis of safety regulations.

[RRR]

I can't imagine there are too many people selfish enough to say no to dying when they have the cure for cancer. And I can't imagine one of the many cancer sufferers wouldn't cancel their free will if they were to refuse.

Besides..this will never happen. Everyone knows Dave Chappelle proved Michael Jackson is the cure for cancer in 2005. Rated R

[Call me Boges]

Theres alot of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ going on in this thread. Go to a child cancer ward and tell them some of the things that are being said in here.


edit - referring to inner imbalance, how it manifests etc.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by Call me Boges

Theres alot of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ going on in this thread. Go to a child cancer ward and tell them some of the things that are being said in here.


edit - referring to inner imbalance, how it manifests etc.

Because cancer is caused by outside forces such as environment, diet, genetics, age, sunlight, smoking, and alcohol.

[ProjectX]

It depends on what kind of person we are talking about. Is he a thorn in society (drug addict, criminal etc). If so then yes off with his head!

[Angela]

If you are willing to murder one innocent person in order to save the lives of millions of others, then you are willing to be a murderer.

Is that okay? Well, who am I to judge you. You get to make your own choices. And if I am standing there and I have the power to prevent you from murdering, I will.

[jawillie]

We wouldn't have to face such a question. Our Government would just do it and no one would know.

[dancer]

Originally Posted by Call me Boges

Theres alot of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ going on in this thread. Go to a child cancer ward and tell them some of the things that are being said in here.

Are you sure about this? A parent may be willing to give up their own life to save the life of their child, but kill another... some might, however, many wouldn't.

It's up to science to find a way to extract or replicate the cure before the person dies a natural death.

[Call me Boges]

Originally Posted by Dharma

Because cancer is caused by outside forces such as environment, diet, genetics, age, sunlight, smoking, and alcohol.

Are you being sarcastic?

[oBakasan]

I can't imagine there are too many people selfish enough to say no to dying when they have the cure for cancer.

Me! Me! I wouldn't give my life away even if my brain contained the answer to cure to all diseases, solve world hunger, stop world poverty and create the perfect chocolate fudge sunday.

You go die for all those people out there.

I'm quite happy to live knowing that I'm alive, and I will do everything in my power so that it stays that way forever.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by Call me Boges

Are you being sarcastic?

100% sarcastic.

Science will only find a 'cure' when the mass consciousness changes enough to allow one. I guess we still need cancer because it is still here.

[oBakasan]

100% sarcastic.

Science will only find a 'cure' when the mass consciousness changes enough to allow one. I guess we still need cancer because it is still here.

Then change yourself.

People who expect everyone else to change first are just going to spend their whole lives waiting.

[Dharma]

huh? I made a statement, not a directive for other people to take action, nor a complaint about cancer.

Did you read something else in what I wrote?