Ethical dilemma

I really like NPR. Growing up, it was always on the radio. Recently, I heard this story. It is about doctors in Haiti faced with ethical decisions.

Do you sacrifice one person in order to save many more? The main dilemma involves a chronically ill woman who needs oxygen in order to survive. The doctors, mostly American volunteers, believe that she will need oxygen for the rest of her life. There are other patients in the hospital that also need the oxygen. They have less chronic diseases and will probably only be on oxygen short term. The resources are scarce. If she is given oxygen other patients will be denied that oxygen. Is it right to deny her oxygen, which will probably cause her death, so that more patients can receive the oxygen? Is her life expendable so that other patients can be saved?

Ultimately that is what the directors of the hospital decided to do. They transfered her to a "local" hospital and took her off of oxygen. They were not around to see if she lived or died. Since they could not legally deny her treatment if she stayed at their hospital they decided to transfer her to a hospital where she might or might not find adequate treatment.

This is one of those situations that I always think is such an dilemma. Does she have a right to oxygen? There is only so much to go around and she will always need it. You can save her life with the oxygen, but you could also save the lives of many more patients if you denied her the oxygen and kept it for future, as of yet unknown, patients. What would you do? I think I would make the same decision that doctors made. Although, I might regret it for the rest of my life. In the article they said that the same hospital later treated a 15 year old boy with a similar issue. However, they were able to get him flown to a hospital in Florida where he received surgery that corrected his problem so that he can live oxygen free for the rest of his life. Did her sacrifice of oxygen save his life?

My only real qualm with the decision made is that the person who was "responsible" for the final decision never actually met the woman. He sentenced her to death and yet he never met her. I suppose it's easier that way, but I feel like it is less moral. If you are going to say it is morally acceptable to sacrifice one person for the benefit of many than you at least need to be able to look that person in the eye.

On the upside, the woman did not die when she was transfered and the report said that her prospects were looking up, even though she did not have oxygen.

What would you do?