Sister of Dying Man Refuses to Donate Bone Marrow to Save His Life
You can't force her. She won't say why she's refusing. Does she have a religious belief that prevents her from doing this sort of thing? A pathological fear of medical procedures? Does she just hate her brother? Is it a power trip? Nobody knows but her and God.
Does her motive matter? I think so. If she, like the Amish, believes that it's tinkering with God's will to do certain medical acts, then she's acting to try to preserve the wellbeing of her soul and her brother's soul. You can disagree but you can see that there's no malice. But if she's doing it because she just doesn't want to, "It's my body!" Well, then there's an unwillingness to reach out and help another human being that's pretty shabby. And if it's, "I don't like him and I wouldn't piss on him to put him out if he was on fire," then there's malice.
The brother is just as dead in any case. But it does make a difference in the morality of her refusal.
I bet there are about a million absolute strangers who are frustrated that they can't step in to do what she's refusing to do.
It'd be nice if she'd say why.
As you say, without more information it is impossible to comment on her motives.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think, Christina? If her motives are indeed "selfish," barring any Amish-like "God`s will" stance against medical intervention, should she be legally required to undergo the relatively simple procedure to save the life of another?
I can see where you're going, L. "If you don't think it's right to force this woman to use her body to save her brother, how can you force women to use their bodies to getastate unwanted fetuses?"
ReplyDeleteThe answer being that while you can draw parallels, there is no other circumstance like that of a mother and child. A woman has responsibilities toward her child that no human being has toward anybody else. It's a unique, natural relationship. Whereas this woman's ability to save her brother grew from medical technology.
Not to mention that what this woman is doing is an act of omission. She's not directing having her brother put to death purely to further her own ends. Other people are still free to step forward to try to help him. Whereas the pregnant woman is demanding the death of the fetus, and nobody has any chance whatsoever of offering help.
Parallel, but not the same.
Hmmmm. Well, you know I believe that NO parent has any responsibilities toward his/her children, born or otherwise, other than the ones they willingly accept. But I agree that there`s NOTHING analagous to a pregnancy.
ReplyDeleteI wondered what you meant by the word, "malice," though, in the case of the transplant-refusing sister. Usually, malice or its absence are significant factors in legal cases of all kinds. It`s possible the sister has a totally selfish reason that doesn`t involve malice toward her brother at all -- she`s terrified of the surgery, she has a medical condition and fears side effects, she doesn`t want an ugly scar, etc.
I only attributed malice toward the last motive, that she just didn't like her brother. I can see many possibilities that fall short of malice, though they certainly also lack love.
ReplyDeleteTlaloc, refusing lifesaving help can be malicious. If you see somebody drowning, and you have a life preserver handy, and you refuse to throw it to him because you don't like him, you're being every bit as malicious as if you pulled out a gun and shot him. Your legal ramifactions will be different, but the evil intent toward the person is the same.
ReplyDeleteTlaloc, I was just saying that a failure to act CAN BE just as malicious as an overt act.
ReplyDeleteAnd a bone marrow transplant isn't "ripping out a hunk of flesh." It's not fun, I'm sure, and it's physically invasive but it's not like getting pithed with a hacksaw.
L. wrote:
ReplyDeleteWell, you know I believe that NO parent has any responsibilities toward his/her children, born or otherwise, other than the ones they willingly accept.
Interesting. So you don't believe in child-support or alimony payments, either? Should a man have a responsibility to pay for the care of a child he did not willingly accept?
Naaman? Is that YOU? If so -- hope all`s well!
ReplyDeleteShould a man have a responsibility to pay for the care of a child he did not willingly accept?
No. I`ve said this before. If the woman decides not to have an abortion against her partner`s wishes, I believe she is on her own -- her choice, her responsibility, and the man owes her or his child nothing. Of course, if the man makes this choice, he should have ZERO parental rights.
If the woman decides not to have an abortion against her partner`s wishes, I believe she is on her own -- her choice, her responsibility, and the man owes her or his child nothing.
ReplyDeleteThis is an example of how the abortion mindset is one of "Screw you, toots!" to women who love their children. They're left in the cold so that the wishes of those who want their unborn to die can be catered to.
Hmmmm. I don`t understand how that`s "catering" to anyone.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is based on the experience of a good friend of mne, who got pregnant after a one-night stand. She was already a single mother, struggling to get by, but she was pro-life and never considered abortion -- nor did she ever consider suing the sperm donor for child support. She said, "He wanted a one-night stand -- not a baby."
I thought her decision was the ultimate in pro-choice thinking: my body, my choice; my baby, my responsibility.
L., part of responsible sex is recognizing the fact that this is how babies are made. Saying, "Hey, I didn't sign on for parenthood" is a cop out.
ReplyDeleteL wrote:
ReplyDeleteNaaman? Is that YOU? If so -- hope all`s well!
Yup, it's me. I'm still around. I'm even a regular commenter on JivinJ's blog. All is indeed well.
No. I`ve said this before. If the woman decides not to have an abortion against her partner`s wishes, I believe she is on her own -- her choice, her responsibility, and the man owes her or his child nothing. Of course, if the man makes this choice, he should have ZERO parental rights.
Alrighty, then. I disagree with you, but at least you're consistent.
"Hey, I didn't sign on for parenthood" isn`t a cop out -- it`s a statement of fact. Not all of us believe that consenting to sex is the same as consenting to the possibility of a baby. Some of us reject that possibility along with rejecting our fertility.
ReplyDeleteL, there are times when choices come with responsibilities that you might not want.
ReplyDeleteWhen I became an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT), part of that is an obligation to stop and render aid. If I'm driving to a concert and I see a car wreck and I drive past and don't help, I can (rightly) lose my certification for refusing to render aid. My obligation toward a sick or wounded person begins when I become aware of their need and ends when I turn that person over to an equal or higher level of care. If I don't want that responsibility, I have no busisines becoming an EMT. If I'm not willing to do CPR on the drowning victim (interrupting my day at the beach) or do the Heimlich Maneuvre on that choking victim (thus interrupting my meal at the restaurant), then I need to stay entirely out of emergency medicine. Once you make the committment, it's a total commitment, not just a commitment when you happen to feel like it. I'd have no right to say, "I came to this restaurant to eat dinner, not to save a choking victim."
If you don't want children, you need to either take permanent, irreversible steps to totally eliminate the possibility that you'll create a child, or the reality is that you might create a child, who is then your responsibility unless and until you turn responsibility over to somebody else via an adoption plan.