So, I admit this is a very unlikely scenario, but since it deals with difficult moral trade-offs and counterintuitive ways of doing good, I thought it was one that we as Effective Altruists ought to consider. Suppose I see an innocent person about to be murdered by a mass shooter. Intuitively, it seems like the best thing to do is jump in front of the bullet to save them. However, it occurs to me that the damage to my body might render it unsuitable for deceased-donor organ donation. Since deceased donors have a chance of saving multiple lives, while jumping in front of the bullet will only save one life (for simplicity's sake, let's assume the shooter commits suicide after firing the particular shot that I'm considering stopping, so we don't have to consider the potential benefits of me staying alive to stop the shooter and prevent further murders), I wonder if it would actually be best not to jump and instead to try to maximize my chances of dying a natural death while being monitored in a hospital, which seems like it would have a better chance of preserving my organs as suitable for donation. To decide whether the expected benefit of saving one life is worth the expected cost in this scenario, does anyone know the expected value of lives saved for a donor who's about 20 in the year 2020 (I mention the year because we have to account for the possibility that medical advances will make organ donation obsolete and unnecessary by the time the donor dies a natural death), assuming the donor is of average health and lives in a relatively wealthy country, and therefore has access to high-quality medical care? Also, supposing I do jump in front of the bullet, what's the expected value of lives saved if I'm listed as a donor and they try to recover my organs anyway? I'd appreciate any thoughts, resources, or answers you guys can offer, especially if you have a background in surgery, organ donation, or organ transplant. If you can, though, please let me know what sources you use to inform your answer.