AAO research

EB‑1A Success Without Awards: Public Health Tuberculosis Control Case Study

Provides a concrete, field‑specific example of winning EB‑1A despite a denied awards criterion.

Minimizing human suffering is not an ethical imperative that overrides all other considerations. The question of whether to kill one person or two to save five depends on the specific circumstances, including:

  • The nature and severity of harm: If the harm being prevented is severe (e.g., imminent death), then even a lower threshold may be justified.

  • Proportionality: Is killing someone for medical purposes more acceptable than killing them for other reasons?

  • Moral status of the person: Does that person have moral rights or interests that make their life worth saving?

  • The means used to kill: If the killing is necessary and done with care, it may be less objectionable.

  • The consent of those affected: Would a five-person panel agree to this decision?

However, in most ethical frameworks, killing anyone for any reason—even if it saves more lives—raises serious moral concerns. The question of when killing becomes acceptable is one that has been debated extensively by philosophers and ethicists.

In practice, the principle "do no harm" (non-maleficence) suggests that we should avoid causing harm whenever possible. If there are alternative means to achieve a good outcome without killing anyone, those alternatives should be pursued.

Furthermore, in many jurisdictions, laws prohibit euthanasia or assisted suicide even when it could save more lives. This reflects broader societal values and legal standards.

In summary:

  • Killing one person is often seen as less objectionable than killing two, but both raise serious moral concerns.

  • The question of whether to kill someone for medical purposes depends on specific circumstances and ethical frameworks.

  • In most cases, alternative means should be pursued if they can achieve the same outcome without killing anyone.

This analysis reflects a balance between competing values and principles. It is not intended as definitive guidance but rather as a framework for thinking about these difficult questions in an ethical context.

Source Note

Non-precedent AAO decisions are used as evidence examples. They are not binding authority and do not predict any individual case.