Yeah it’s entirely valid, it’s intended to be a tough problem with different answers depending on who answers. I was just trying to elaborate on the other side of it since initially you seemed to imply there’s a “correct” answer which is yours, so I just gave my view on it with similar confidence to illustrate there isn’t one. All sides of it can be morally justified and since there isn’t any good choices there at all, by design, it’s kind of easy to lose sight of that.

And yeah, essentially the dilemmas are of the same form, but I believe it’s meaningful whether one is “supposed” to be there making the choices vs. someone from outside the situation that isn’t normally expected to be making the choice. If the conductor that drives the train chooses not to pull the lever, it’s different from a bystander choosing not to. The latter can more easily justify not participating, the former simply can’t, because it’s their very job to make that choice, and the levers being a part of the framework within which they work day to day, should make inaction much more significant and unseemly. Same for the doctor making the choices, but on top of that, there are the extra layers of having made the doctor’s oath, which a bystander wouldn’t have made, and also the fact that a bystander can’t be expected to know the implications and details and applicability of “cutting to pieces” someone like mechanical spare parts, which I assume isn’t as easy as that and a doctor would know to calculate that into it, unlike a civilian.

But I digress. Just wanted to illustrate that the choice not to act is not “correct” since by design there can not be a correct answer. But correct for you is valid. It seemed weird to talk about it as if it was objective so I got a bit sidetracked to throw my several handfuls of cents in.