Two More "Axiom" Questions

[The Bandit Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, what if the dog is a smoker? What then?

[/ QUOTE ]

The real question is will euthanizing both patient X and Y cure my migraines forever?

[The Bandit Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
What if the pills aren't free? What if smoking meant you couldn't afford the pain medication? And the non smoker can, because of all the money he saved by not buying cigarettes. Is it right that the system allow that second guy who is in less pain to get it? Suppose you are a pain pill salesman?

[/ QUOTE ]

I say give the smoker another cigarette.

[BHokie1]

1. The dog dies to relieve the pain of humans.

2. The smoker is in more pain and gets the medicine.

The follow up is a loaded question - who suffers from the lose of income from the pills.

If I'm the pain pill salesman.
How much do I rely on the income?
Will I lose my job?
Will I go homeless, starve, will my children go without food?
Will relieving the smokers pain for free, cause myself and/or others to suffer?

If I'm not the pain pill salesman - is there someone else that is relying on the income from the sale?
To what extend are they relying on the income?

Are we setting a precedent by giving the pain medicine for free to the person in the most pain?
One that might be binding that eventually leads to the suffering of others from lose of income.

Basically I would try to relieve the most pain unless it caused others to suffer.

For those who feel like the smoker deserves his pain - what if he had money and the non-smoker did not?
At what expense do you relieve the non-smokers pain for free?

[ill rich]

1. no
2. i have no idea, im not comfortable with that

[SuperPokerJedi]

nice quns!