(I hope I haven't done this in this thread before...oh well. If I did,
please disregard...)

In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were
crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it
became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone
were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this
situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown.
Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard,
for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would
be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some
people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were
done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for
these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some,
he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his
responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all
die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for
rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the
weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be
absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown
overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors
were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been
on the jury, how would you have decided?

WOW!

JUST GLAD I WASNT ON THAT JURY!! THAT WOULD BE A HARD ONE BUT I SUPPOSE
IF HE DID NOTHING AT ALL...HED BE GUILTIER IN MY BOOK!!

NOT HIS FAULT THE BOAT ONLY CARRIED 7 PPL!

TOUGH ONE JEAN

Sounds like to me after that decision was made the captain should have
been one of those to go. How can someone make a decsion as such and not
willing to be one of those that goes?

When in command you have to make hard decisions. Capt. had command,
with the facts available, I side w/the captain.

are there provisions in maritime law, in this instance? under the
circumstances, and with the facts available, i would agree with sage.

My answer might depend on how the captain implemented this decision.
Did he murder people with his bare hands then then toss the bodies over?
Or did the people who died finally bow to pressure and take their own
lives?

Personally, i support the captain in making a tough decision in a messed
up situation. But if i'm on the jury, i have to look at what the law
says.

push him over 1st

^^^

Funny how this hypothetical scenario is still buzzing in the back of my
head - especially that part about deciding to kill the weakest. How was
it decided *which* people were the weakest? Was it really necessary?
(as opposed to random selection or another method...)

To not only decide to kill people, but to take it upon oneself to decide
*which* people to kill; maybe I change my answer...

Cultures have done the same for years.
american indians, when they moved locations, left the people behind,
survive or not. Had to be a benefit to the tribe, not a drain. White
men changed this idea. No family to care for you, can't care for self
???????

I never want to be dependant on someone taking care of me.
Gwen worried more about quality of life than she did dying.
Did what she wanted right up to her death.
May I be as strong.