Well it seems the mods of that other sub agree with me and nice one word response. Medicine and research are two separate things. Research is strictly scientific, medicine has to involve the human component, we (at least everyone I know that has gone in the last decade) were literally taught courses in empathy and ethical decision making. One of those ethical tools is helping versus harming, if the aid outweighs the harm then it is obligatory to provide that service. If there is more harm like your claiming the consensus would be to not provide the service. You are a little disconnected and seem to see people as numbers rather than patients with individual lives, it isn't "emotions clouding judgement" it is emotions being used to under patient situations to help ease their care. No one wants a robot. Besides you are so high and mighty with your microbiome work that makes you an expert in medical ethics, so how can the gut not be re-cultured when there are literally procedures to do that exact thing? Even in the worst of cases, fecal transplants do exist and that's if the patient doesn't bounce back from the antibiotic treatment themselves which most do.

I asked if you would have empathy in evaluating the question, to see if it was simply sociopathy, I wasn’t assuming you to save either party or even get involved I wanted to know if you have a shred of empathy. As for your other points, certified physicians will know more about medicine than you (the scientific side and human side unless you’re some kind of all-knowing savant). As for the pandemic response, shut downs were implemented to prevent more deaths than would be caused by economic harm, but no you probably know better than all health professionals. You seem to enjoy clinging to your self proclaimed prowess with analytics and seem to be a self declared expert on all topics regarding health, global affairs, and philosophy. A few people claiming ideas that go against all of the established literature in health are generally regarded as jokes unless they have substantial evidence. Saving one child is worth exposing 199 children to antibiotics because those children all had the same risk of infection and the long term effects are minimal if any, gut flora can be restored but only if they’re alive.

Just put em down like a dog, amirite? /s if it wasn’t obvious

So for the trolley thought experiment, is it safe to assume you will without hesitation choose a loved one to die in the place of six strangers since it’s a numbers game or do you have some sort of empathy and need time to deliberate?