You are a doctor. One healthy patient's organs could save the lives of 5 people dying in the next room. No one would ever know.
3 votes worldwide
Results based on anonymous votes from users worldwide.
Vote on this dilemma
You haven't voted on this one yet — cast your choice and see how it splits.
Vote now →Read the expert analysisEthics
This is the trolley problem with one structural difference: the one person killed isn't on the alternate track — they're an unwilling participant the actor has used as a means to save others. Most ethical frameworks find this difference morally decisive even when the math is identical.
Why people split
Five-greater-than-one consequentialism gives a clean A answer; almost no one defends it cleanly because almost everyone has the intuition that doctors shouldn't kill patients for their organs, even quietly, even with no one knowing. The intuition tracks a distinction between killing to use someone's body and letting someone die from natural causes.
Educational perspective, not professional advice.
Send via messages, stories, or copy link
Was this dilemma interesting?
⚡ Challenge a friend!
Send them the link — they'll see your result only after they vote.
More share optionsInstagram, TikTok, X, WhatsApp, Discord, Telegram, story card
📱 Share as Story
Download a 9:16 card for Instagram Stories or TikTok.
Auto-posting is not available from the web. Upload the PNG manually.
What the split says
With 67% choosing “Never. You cannot kill an innocent patient” (3 total votes), this result leans toward attention to specific consequences among SplitVote voters. That does not make that option correct; it shows which cost they are currently more willing to accept.
Worth asking yourself
- What cost are you more willing to accept?
- Which value should matter more here?