Suppose you are the doctor in a hospital, and you have 4 patients who are all dying from the failure of different organs. There is another patient as well, who is dying but can be saved. If you save this man, there will be no way to save the other four, and they will die. However, if you allow this man to die, you can then harvest his organs and save the other four. What do you do?
Save the one who can be saved.
Ah, but now you see the problem I hope? In the previous two cases you opted to save the many in the place of the few. Why now do you choose to save the few rather than the many? Either you think that there is some reason why this case is different from the others in some morally-relevant sense (and which sense is that?), or you suddenly changed your moral paradigm (not likely). Or you don't have a problem with contradictions. So which is it?
Simple, triage. I was a paramedic for 30 yrs., and I did make this decision on a few cases. Simply put, you have 2 of four catagories that are relegated to later treatment. They are the walking wounded, simple cuts, abrasions, simple fractures, etc. And those that are terminal, from a triage point of view, i.e. major multi-trauma, Exposed cerebral matter, etc. The two groups in the middle, you treat the ones who stand the better chance of survival first, then onto the 3rd group, those much more seriously hurt than in group 2.
And no, we are all walking contradictions anyway. I feel confident in my decisions. But, I have had counseling after some particularily bad incidents, and even to this day, I still recall. And still question. Be well, my friend.
Yeah, it's because of my biology background. I thought of Survival of the Fittest first thing.