flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) (08/24/84)
From Robert A. Pease: > Now, clearly, my life depends on you donating your kidney to me. > But for whatever reason, you decide that you don't want to even > though it would mean my life. Now, we have a situation where my > right to life is directly dependent on you giving up your right to > control what happens to your own body. In this case, which right > prevails? My right to life, or your right to control what happens > to your own body? David Simen replies: As for any ethical question, the solution to this one depends on the personal ethics of the individual. For me, any attempt to force Rick to donate part of his body, or to undergo any medical procedure whatsoever in order to help you, is immoral and unethical. Why so? Which would you rather lose, your life or your control over a non-vital body part? I think a person's life is more important; and that this is precisely the issue. Suppose we construct a slightly different case. A mad scientist is about to take out one of my kidneys against my will, and you are the only one who can stop him; but if you stop him, he will kill you (somehow -- use your imagination). But for whatever reason, you decide you don't want to even though it would mean my loss of control over what happens to my own body. Here we have a situation where my right to control over my own body directly depends on your giving up your life. I'll bet that David Simen and others who agree with him will say that his right to life should prevail in this case. But how can anyone justify giving different answers in these two cases? It would seem to be inconsistent. It should not matter what the status quo is or who needs to act (vs. being inactive) to save the other. But I submit that that is the only difference that motivates anyone to judge the cases differently. Also, Pease's case was suggested as an analogy to abortion. But I suggest another analogy to abortion. You and I are siamese twins. If we are separated I will die but you won't (let's say I depend more on certain shared blood channels). You claim that you have a right to control over your own body that includes the right to separate. Now, which is the better analogy? On Pease's and Simen's views, I suspect, it makes a big difference which analogy is closer; for they would judge that you do not have the right to separate. --The aspiring iconoclast, Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flink