Save one that one can be saved! Then try for another also.

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

Doctor should save one that is with highest probability of recovering and try his best to get/ order the medicine for the other kid.

I agree with Abdul. God does watch his children however, we can have as much say in the child's life as God does and we have to decide who we are going to be.

Although it is a difficult choice, the medicine can be split between the 2 children. Children are precious and I cannot deny one child nor many.

Also, you can look at the naturally occurring biological immune systems. Although it may not be a full dose, it may be enough to relieve some comfort and build up immunity. The child may not have strong immune systems but it gets harder to adapt as age sets in so they have as good of a chance as any. It may even be smart to consider breast milk as a source of antibodies. (This is theoretical as I have not done the research myself and I could be wrong.)

There may also be another shipment coming in or a natural source for that area to look into. Alternative medicines are not often considered as completely helpful but it is where our bio-engineered medicine originates from. Most medicines only relieve symptoms anyways if not provide another set of them. So I guess it also depends on if it is medicine or a vaccine.

One doctor called it a “tragic choice: There are 2 children in front of you, and you only have enough medicine for one. How do you choose?

Depending on the doctor's personal moral philosophy s/he is subscribing during that time e.g. Utilitarianism, Kantianism etc. whereby s/he will respond accordingly.  For example, if s/he is subscribing Utilitarianism i.e. a person will perform an action that will bring maximum benefits to the majority - will drive the doctor to save the child's life that have the highest probability to be saved / recovered etc.

Dear Cameen:

It is a highly theoretical situation. In such a context, there seems to be no criterion of justice to decide. Therefore, I probably would let chance decide (using a coin or other instrument) . I think it would be the fairest option for both children.

I would probably try to ascertain which parents (family) would be least affected by the loss of their child, and give the other one the treatment.

Problem is of human touch with the discrimination of our mind with the inner response so to say the advice of our intuition.

If 2 patient are not in the serious line of action in this case the dose of 50% to be implemented so as to offer the relief to both the patient .

In case if one patient is passing a serious problem & other is passing with the relief of medicine for the survive in their case the medicine should pass on the second patient .

In such cases faith & will of god both work & in these case doctor should move his consciousness with his faith & to place the will of God to whom the consciousness of doctors permits .

Doctors start the examination with the purse of patient & accordingly to the nature of illness Dr examines the nail also in such situation it is likely that a knowledge of palmistry may come to rescue & in  such cases a lifeline on the palm may offer certain hints & guideline in the line with life of patient .

This is my personal opinion 

All of us have to at times take tragic decision in real life situation. The condition of the children should prompt the doctor to take the decision. Any logical mind will go for saving the child with high probability of recovering and getting well. There after the other child be taken care. .... 

Save one that one can be saved! Then try for another also.

 Dear all,

Thank you very much for sharing your opinions. It's very interesting to hear different views on how this issue might be resolved.  Thank you very much again.

Sincerely,

Cameen 

I think the medicine should be given to the one who is more serious, presuming the less serious has more time at her/his disposal, and can be helped by someone else later.

Dear Cameen 

Your question is a vague one. Are the two children comparable? Are they of the same social-economic, gender, or demographic characteristics? Are they equally suffering from the same illness with the same acuteness or the same degree of expected recovery with the medicines available with the doctor? If yes, let the doctor, the circumstances or the destiny decide.  

Or let the doctor start the treatment for both the children and arrange for the required stock in the meanwhile. The doctor may give medicine to the children in proportion to the acuteness of sufferings.

There is one more answer. If the doctor is a monopolist professional aiming at profit maximization (as the economists assume), the treatment will follow the realization of the monetary expectations.

HOWEVER, dear Cameen, I think the question plays a game. My answer is as follows:

I find only one child suffering from the illness curable with my medicinal stock. I give treatment to her. And I find the other one healthy say, for example, the attendant (or a relative like a sibling or a cousin etc.) to the suffering child.

I wish I hear your intelligent answer.

With best regards

Another puzzle which spoils your sleep!

I should never check the Q&A of RG after dinner!

;-)

Highly theoretical question except for exceptional circumstances.

I would suggest to watch 'Sophie's Choice' (1982) in which a woman, upon arrival at Auschwitz, was forced to choose which one of her two children would be gassed and which would proceed to the labor camp.

 Dear Dr. Khan

Thank you very much for sharing your viewpoints. I agree that the factors you mentioned should also be taken into consideration. I came across this issue in the New York Times, and felt interested because of its ethical and moral overtones, and I thought it must have been difficult for physicians to decide who should be allowed to remain alive.  Then, I became curious about what others in academia would say regarding this issue. So I borrowed this question, as noted earlier, and posted it here. And I'm glad that I did because I've been guided by all answers to see many possibilities of how this issue may be resolved . Thank you very much again. Thank everyone too. 

I'm attaching the link of the article that stirred up my curiosity below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/drug-shortages-forcing-hard-decisions-on-rationing-treatments.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Sincerely,

Cameen

Thanks a lot, Dear Cameen.

Dear Dr. Khan,

You're very welcome sir.

Cameen

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"Every choice you make has consequences; certain losses, certain gains, possible losses, and possible gains. Decide if the possible gains are worth the certain losses, and if they are, find the courage to leap. If they aren't make peace with and appreciate the choice not to risk what you have."

                                                                           -----  Doe Zantamata

It is wiser to save the one who has better chances of survival. But people are often irrational and take decision based on their own feelings, culture, experience and other factors. Some other choices would be to save the one who is weaker (if the doctor feels empathy) or randomization - just one of them without any objective criteria.

All other conditions being close to equal, I would save the one who has more skills (esp. artistic) - this is a better return on life than simply return on financial investment 

The doctor should listen to his conscience and act. A conscience clause needs to be very carefully considered.