← All dilemmas
⚖️justice
Scopri che un medico, spinto da compassione, pratica eutanasia su pazienti terminali in stato di incoscienza senza un consenso precedentemente espresso. Denunceresti questa pratica non autorizzata?
Vote to reveal how SplitVote voters split.
YOUR CHOICE
OR
Anonymous voting. No account required. Results update in real time.
Why this dilemma matters
No legal answer is the same as a moral answer here — both have to be argued. Choosing “Sì, perché il rispetto delle procedure legali è fondamentale per proteggere i diritti dei pazienti e l'integrità della professione medica” prioritises the strict rule; choosing “No, perché in casi estremi di sofferenza, l'atto compassionevole del medico potrebbe rappresentare l'unica via per una morte dignitosa” gives more weight to a context-aware exception.
Worth asking yourself
- Who is the rule protecting, and who is paying for it?
- Is mercy a kind of justice here, or its opposite?
More Justice Dilemmas
- A new tax would halve the income of the top 1% and double the income of the bottom 20%. The total wealth in society stays the same.
- An AI sentencing tool is more consistent than human judges across similar cases, but cannot explain its reasoning. Should it be used?
- You are a juror. Every piece of evidence says guilty — but your gut tells you the defendant is innocent. The jury must be unanimous.
- DNA evidence exonerates an innocent person after 25 years on death row. The real killer is 85, frail, and dying. Do they go to prison?