|
Post by Ben Byler on Sept 21, 2014 18:47:44 GMT
I think that the fact that the man might have filed a lawsuit against Dillard for possibly paralyzing him is absolutely awful; I mean if Dillard hadn’t stepped in he probably would have died from lack of oxygen. By the time I am done with college I would like to have a degree in pediatrics so I am kind of putting myself into his shoes right now and wondering what I would have done in his situation. I would like to think that I would help the truck driver who is dying and can only be saved by me. But then again I don’t know if I would because that is a huge liability, because if that man is paralyzed then there would never be any chance of me ever becoming a pediatrician. I think l that I would still help the man because if I had the training to possibly help save a man's life and I didn't, I would feel really guilty for not helping him. If Dillard would have been sued then the man didn't deserve to be saved, but also I think that you could make a case for Dillard, because he saved the mans life, because the procedure that paralyzed the man saved his life, so therefore it was either, live and be paralyzed, or die.
|
|
|
Post by Timothy Erwin on Sept 21, 2014 22:11:51 GMT
I agree with you that the decision seems obvious that the injured man should be helped. I wonder, after reading how you talked about guilt, what was motivating the doctor in the story to save the drivers life? A guilty conscious? I would hope that our own sense of morality would have guided us all to act to the benefit of those in need instead of ourselves.
|
|