Gimmy a kidney or else- questioning the sanctity of life


GrayWolfShadow's avatar
So the abortion thread has me thinking....

If I am going to die, and need a kidney asap, and the only person who could get me it in time is my mother, is she allowed by the law to refuse? Please try your best to see through the feelings evoked by a mother letting her child die, and look to the legality of forcing a personally harmful surgery to save a different person. It doesn't even have to be my mom and I, in fact lets have it be a stranger, who doesn't know me at all, but now is having this obligation thrust upon them. Maybe I even need the kidney because she hit me with her car! By law, should she be forced to have surgery, and live the rest of her life without that kidney? Can a police officer shove her into the operating room? Is that legal, is that right. Whatever the individual case may be, should she be forced to endure the donation against her will because it's the only way to save my life?

Can we give a person total control over another person's body (including the ability to harm it) for any reason? Can one person be forced to endure a lesser form of harm if it saves someone else's' life. Not is it the decent thing to do, not would you be willing to do it, but should it be law, should it be required. Thoughts? Objections? Obvious flaws in my analogy that i overlooked?

You see I was under the impression that the argument about abortion was if an unborn-human deserves the same moral consideration as a born human, but i have since become aware that even with equal moral considerations there are still issues. So why don't we all just help fund artificial womb technology and be done with it!
Comments134
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
JericaWinters's avatar
Wow, lots of responses, :la: I'm glad I was adopted--and born with two functioning kidneys.
sticks84's avatar
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.
GrayWolfShadow's avatar
You didn't adress the concept behind the analogy at all...
sticks84's avatar
yeah I realize that now... Sometimes my brain just starts going without follow threw
GrayWolfShadow's avatar
it happens to the best of us xD
sticks84's avatar
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.
GrayWolfShadow's avatar
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.
TheSpiderFromMars's avatar
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.
Saeter's avatar
This is what you are trying to get at I think: [link]
GrayWolfShadow's avatar
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.
Saeter's avatar
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.
Ebonsong's avatar
Not here for the debate or stating my personal stance, I just had to add my cheeky comment...

Unless you had a terrible birth defect, she already gave you TWO kidneys at birth. And now you want one of hers, and to risk her life in the process? Geez. :P
CinderBlockStudios's avatar
A human isn't a kidney.
Totally-dead's avatar
But a kidney is sometimes human! :iconcoolplz:
UncleGargy's avatar
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.
Mercury-Crowe's avatar
And...

Say we ARE obligated, morally and by law, to give a kidney if it was needed.

Now, say that, for whatever reason, we ALL end up with one kidney.

Then one persons only kidney fails.

Is someone then morally obligated to kill themselves so that one other person can live?
Mercury-Crowe's avatar
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.
Calstor's avatar
Your last sentence reminds me of Repo! The Genetic Opera.
alzebetha's avatar
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.
Totally-dead's avatar
... The anology has a problem.

In abortion for at least 6 months of the cycle there is only one person involved. The mother.
GrayWolfShadow's avatar
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.
HametsuNoCharge's avatar
....so the pills is also technically considered killing babies then?