In the context of the trolley problem, the author proposes that the scenarios of the trolley and the surgeon could be treated as identical situations at their core. They are both crafted where the individual in charge has to choose between five lives or one life to kill or save. However, all I can see that connects these two scenarios is the basic idea of the five lives versus the one life. That being said, I also do not think that these demand the same actions to be taken. In the case of the trolley, in either situation, by hitting the switch to kill the one person, or not doing it and killing the five people the outcomes seem as they could be considered equivalent and neither one is any more preferable than the other. If we want to take the cost-benefit analysis outlook to the problem, then we would choose to pull the switch, killing the one person as the net of four lives saved is better than killing five and saving one. Nevertheless, the language of the problem is rather ambiguous, making it more difficult to determine which option (pulling the switch, or letting the trolley hit the five people) is the better of the two outcomes. On the other hand, we have more clarity when it comes to the problem with the surgeon where there seems to be less ambiguous language, which makes it easier to comprehend the situation and at least for me understand that it is morally unacceptable to kill a man who already denied the surgeon his consent to take his organs for the surgeon's patients. One aspect that I think makes this situation slightly complicated is the sole nature of the medical field as there are many ethical issues and topics that can be covered in any science or medical field. Nevertheless, I still agree that it is morally wrong for the surgeon to kill this man to save his patients, even if we were to assume that the surgeon did something wrong to cause the defects/problems these patients were having that required them to need these organ transplants. You cannot just go out and kill anybody for your own need to keep a good status as a surgeon, even if that does mean you will be saving five lives. Now if people want to argue if this is the same as the trolley case, I feel as though there would be other potential solutions in the surgeon's case, whereas the trolley is an event that only has these two solutions and must act right now. Other potential donors could be presented to the surgeon, maybe we are supposed to assume that in this situation that they will not, but in reality, there would most likely be another potential donor to show up. There is also the case that could he save a few of the individuals and not all five. Again, this might be something that we are supposed to limit our thinking of in this scenario, but it is still an option in real life. On the other hand, for the trolley scenario, we don't have any other potential solutions to this problem; it will either hit the five people or the one. Overall, I think that we need to treat these two situations as two different scenarios and understand that it is acceptable for theses situations to have different outcomes.