Reguardless if you have someone give you a kidney weither it be family or not it all depends on blood types with rejection and recovery. My 3 sisters all had a 80 to 90% chance of their kidneys working for my body, but my dad was the only 100% blood match. And I can say 10 years after I've never been healthier. Plus giving is the ultimate sacrifice, the donor will and can suffer worse after the surgery. It really hits you when you realize your own family would shorten their lives just for you to go living.
But yeah, I see where you are coming from with this. It can fall into other categorizes of priority over life. Say if you were in a car wreck and became a vegetable, in your will you state that you want to try and be revive and not pull the plug, but say after so long long that decision is on your family and they just want to pull the plug because they are forced to look at you everyday and pay a growing bill. You can't do anything. Is it better to let you slip away slowly into a existence that we know nothing of or let your body lye in a bed and slow become more and more decrepit over time.
well even more then that it's about if people have a fundamental right over their own body. If that coma patient would be saved by some brain surgery but had in his will specifically no surgery under any circumstance, then you can't do it. If someone will die unless you give them a kidney you cannot be forced to do it. If you don't want to be a host to a foreign body then you should have the right to remove it.
TheSpiderFromMarsFeatured By OwnerDec 11, 2012Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I don't think it's right to force a person to do a specific thing with his/her body, in this case donating a kidney. I met a doctor recently that brought up the topic of brain surgery regarding my epilepsy, and that really creeped me out, and it would be horrible if they forced me into doing it against my will, even though it means I might get better.
well not exactly, the truth is kidney transplants aren't an incredibly dangerous procedure, the idea im trying to get as is undesired body invasion for personal gain doesn't sit well with me, even when that invasion saves a life, your body is your domain.
I was meaning how the theocratic laws effect individual human rights in place of the "forced organ donation" analogy. In the case in question the woman's death was a direct result of purely religious legislation pulling the arms of the medical professionals.
The new technology makes us think of this kind of new 'morality' If you would not survive if you lived in the jungle then the other person should not be forced to do anything to save anyone's life. It's whether or not that person could live with themselves. Nature is a great leveller, always was until we started to interfere.
The argument against abortion isn't that unborn have the same rights as 'living', it is that they have MORE rights. It's OK to kill an adult, but not an unborn baby. In fact, the interest only lasts through the pregnancy. It is morally just fine to force a child to be born that will then die a few months or years later of sickness, neglect, or abuse. The right to life exists only until the baby exits at term.
I believe that all life should live with the absolute minimum of suffering. I believe that death is an acceptable means to end suffering. As a farmer and a vet, I have to make that choice sometimes and I don't lose sleep over it.
No, I do not believe it is a 'right' to receive organs, or anything, from someone else. It is not a 'right' for anyone to force anyone else to do so.
Bad things happen. People are damaged. And sometimes they die. It is part of nature.
Now, if it comes down to artificial kidneys, and if they exist if a hospital or society is allowed to deny them to people who need them it's a little different.
Obviously for me the answer is anyone that is demonstrable stupid is wasting the ressources of their body. Demonstrable stupid for me includes most people following religious ideals and acutally believing them, people with severe mental problems, as well as some conservative politicians.
In this we are assuming that as soon as conception has occurred you are a person with full human rights, now i don't necessarily agree with that, but let's humor the pro-life mindset for a moment and consider if it's right even then.
Your hypothetical is a little constraining, but there is no legal way to force organ donation. I don't foresee any path for that in the future.
On a personal note. I donated my kidney last year and there are many many tests and conditions that must be met to make sure you are physically, mentally, and ethically appropriate as a donor. It is all worth it and I would hope that healthy people would be willing to help save your life in the event you needed this.
If you don't think it's enforceable thats fine, but should it be the law? Should someone go to court for denying a kidney?
I know, the analogy really isn't perfect, in my head i think of a mother who tests to see if she's a donor but decides later that she doesn't want to do it, or a stranger in the same hospital who was tested to see if she could donate to her own family member (but cannot) and the doctor noticed the match. In any of the situations I listed I would hope they are willing to donate (especially my mom) but does that mean it should be legally required?
It's a thought experiment, accept the terms and consider it honestly! It's unrealistic because it's obvious they wouldn't force someone to donate, it would be inhuman to force a kidney donation, but is it not considered inhuman to force a free womb rental. In both instances you are deeming that someone does or doesn't have the right to control their own body to the determent of another. I am killing this person by not giving the kidney, only i can give it, i am killing this fetus by not gestating it, only i can support it. Am I allowed to maintain the integrity of my body as I see fit?
But she would be liable for the injury not for refusing to surrender her body. Are you making a case that sex should be illegal if you are unwilling to carry a child, that could be interesting, sexist and not enforceable but interesting. And even then rape would be a case where it is not her fault at all (like a stranger being forced to give a kidney rather then a stranger that hit her with a car) and would you would then admit that her right to control her own body takes precedent, she is not liable. I mean the person needing a kidney still dies because of her refusal.
Hay you like studies that have no clear reason for findings and only speculation, im sure you'll like this [link] Do you consider that the findings are dependent on these people wanting the children and therefor having happier lives as a result rather then being forced to carry a child you do not want? But speculation is speculation. In either case the issue being discussed is not if giving the kidney would someone help or hinder the mother, but if it is her right to decide to give it or not. It's her body, can she have control of it?
Natural causes? Well what if a kid has the flue and the parent doesn't' take them to the hospital, that child died of natural causes, the mom didn't actively cause the death, but it is murder through neglect. Inaction can be murder just as much as action.
Everyone has the right to have control over their body. Everyone has free will to decide what they're going to do with it, and nobody should violate that, no exceptions. Human laws should not interfere.
The idea that life is 'sacred' is a foolish one. It leads people to ask questions so wide in scope that it requires an equally generic answer. An absolute principle requires an absolute response.
The simple answer is that it's not simple. If you need a kidney and your mother could give you it, we're asking two questions: How necessary is it that your mother be the donor? What is the impact on compromising both your mother's bodily autonomy and integrity? Should this be compellable by law?
The problem with these scenarios is they are posited as-is. For the first question, how does anyone know that only your mother can be the donor right-this-instant? You can say 'yeah, but for the purposes of the scenario...' but then it's not realistic. If it's not realistic, then there's no point in pontificating. We must always include ignorance into the scenario, not omniscience. Secondly, there's always the point of compromising another's bodily autonomy and integrity. How desirable are the social effects of this? And thirdly, how desirable is having this be legally-sanctioned?
When we get to this point, we're asking to weigh various principles. In this case, given the interest in one's own bodily autonomy and integrity, someone should not be compellable by law to surrender their organs if another person needs them. However, there should be valid exceptions. No law should be absolute. I can see a situation in, say, a disaster area where a surgeon has the option to save two lives instead of one by taking another patient's blood without their consent. By what I have said, this would be reprehensible behaviour not sanctioned by law. However, it can be excused by law if the circumstances permit.
Because womb technology costs more than sex, and you can't accidentally impregnate a womb machine?
Kidneys, really? If this isn't a joke, then the way in which this analogy applies to abortion is beyond me. Abortion is not "letting" the fetus die. It's a willful action with consequences. Assuming passivity is silly.
If we're talking abortion, then assuming a stranger is probably more accurate, but still off. The mother may or may not feel a connection to the fetus, especially at 1st trimester when the decision usually takes place.
As for the kidneys, you won't see anyone forcing anyone to donate a live kidney in a modern, democratic country. Maybe in a backwards totalitarian state, or a fascist state.
If we're going to play around with silly morality questions, then consider these scenarios: 1) You are the commander of a post-apocalyptic zombie safety zone. You've sent some scouts to gather food for the settlement. You see them running back to the open gates with zombies chasing them. Five manage to make it through the gates but one is lagging behind. If the zombies make it through the gate, your whole settlement is jeopardized. Do you close the gate now, or wait to give the one scout a chance? 2) Same scenario, except instead of someone lagging behind, there is someone standing next to you on the wall above the gate. The five might make it if the zombies are distracted, but won't otherwise. Do you push the person into the zombies to save the five scouts?
Aside from the idea that in theory a fetus could be removed from the biological mother and implanted into an artificial womb for gustation so neither the mothers rights nor the infants rights are infringed upon, that last part really wasn't supposed to be serious o.o sorry about the confusion.
Nope, not a joke, just an idea being thrown out there. And someone brought that same point up but i'm not buying it. Inaction can be murder just as much as action. If a mother lets her child die of starvation or a treatable illness because she chooses to do nothing then she has murdered the child through neglect. Why is refusing to give a kidney not murder through neglect? Letting the fetus die through natural means isn't inherently better, if a woman is dieing from a drawn out miscarriage going septic then waiting for the infant to die naturally before removal can cause severe damage to the mother, even killing her. If you hadn't herd about this case that happened recently [link]
This idea that the cases could involve a plethora of relationships between the person needing the kidney and the person getting a kidney is part of why this works. Some women will feel emotionally connected early on, some will not at all, and cases exist everywhere in between.
And it's a thought experiment, go with it, if you think it's flawed point it out but otherwise the idea is to accept the conditions best you can and consider the morality involved.
-__- i already get enough silly morality questions in my philosophy class, can we stay on topic for a moment. It's okey if you disagree or think the analogy is flawed, but please, you don't have to be a jackass.
I figured as much. A flippant answer to a joke scenario makes sense, don't it? - Though as far as whether a fetus could be removed and raised by bottle, the question then becomes "Who foots the bill?"
Re: Why is refusing to give a kidney not murder through neglect? - Because cadaveric donations work just fine. - Which reminds me, have you registered yourself on the organ donation registry for your state?
My point was that the correlation between kidney donations and abortions is inherently flawed. Generally when talking about abortion legislation, we're not talking about miscarriages. We're talking about undergoing a procedure to kill a fetus. There's no passivity involved.
Re: Letting the fetus die through natural means isn't inherently better. There's no "letting" a fetus die by "natural" means. That whole process is called miscarriage, and it's not like a woman can control what her uterus does on its own. And if the fetus has an anomaly that makes it incompatible with life? Then it won't survive anyway. That's called futility. If, for example, the fetus has been involved in an accident, of course you can try to save it, and it might survive. So yes, I agree in that respect. There's little difference between aborting and denying a fetal blood transplant in the case of an accident.
Re: if a woman is dieing from a drawn out miscarriage going septic - So basically, the fetus has no chance of long-term survival and they're prolonging the inevitable. Again, it's a case of futility. From what I understand, her uterus was auto-aborting already (fully dilated with broken membranes). If anything, the doctors prevented the natural course. They should have known better. If her husband isn't pursuing it to the full letter of the law, then he should. - But from what I understand, you're lumping this in with "murder through inaction" of the fetus. Are you telling me that any reasonable person would think the fetus had a chance of survival with medical intervention? Really? If anything, it's murder through inaction of the mother, or more accurately, murder through willful action. A fully dilated uterus doesn't just sit there without medical intervention halting its progress. If the doctors had done nothing, she might have had a better chance of surviving.
Re: It's a thought experiment - Fair enough.
Re: Silly morality questions - Yours isn't silly? Or off topic? - To quote you: "it's a thought experiment, go with it, if you think it's flawed point it out but otherwise the idea is to accept the conditions best you can" - We could make a morality question about whether I have a right to be a jackass or not. Hey hey, how about that?
Do you think that giving a kidney is so easy? It involves dangerous surgery. You might not make it. So you are asking people to sacrifice themselves for another. What if the kidneys had failed due to drinking? Would YOU be willing to risk your life for someone who does NOT deserve another chance? Kidneys should come from dying people. If there is not match or relatives are not willing to help then you HAVE to accept your fate. I would.