Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Secular Elation · 07-18-2003, 03:37 PM

I wish to share a fictioal scenario in which I request your opinion on the situation.

Person X is an individual who one day discovers that he has a rare condition in which his liver is slowly malfunctioning. In time, it will fail, resulting in his death. His doctors in turn have resorted to the donor list, where the only hope for Person X is to find a matching donor who can replace the bad liver.

Person Y is an individual who happens to have a liver that is compatible with Person X's system. No other donors match.

The problem is, in order for Person Y to donate his liver to Person X, Person Y will of course die. This means that Person Y will need a new liver himself to continue living. Assume that no liver matches can be found for Person Y after he/she donates, meaning that it will cost his/her live. Despite this, Person Y is still willing to donate his/her liver so that Person X will live.

Additionally, assume that Person X is an adolescent in high school, whereas Person Y is an early 20's software programmer.

Several questions: should Person Y be allowed to surrender his life so that Person X can live? Does Person Y have the right to decide whether he wants to do this or not? To what degree of a role does the age difference between the two person's matter? What if Person X was older and Person Y was younger--does that mean Person Y could not donate, since he hasn't lived as long as Person X? To what degree would the respective genders of Person X and Person Y matter in this scenario? Of the two, who's interests are more imporant?

(NOTE: I know this is a silly and unrealisitc scenario--but consider it solely as a ficitonal "what if" situation).

Adrammalech · 07-18-2003, 03:50 PM

Well in my little world if person Y cares for person X so deeply that person Y is willing to risk almost certain death rather than living without person X, then person Y is free to donate. Person Y is making this decision, knowing full well the consequences. The consequences in this case are, if person Y does not donate, person X dies. The second one if person Y donates then person X lives while person Y dies. Person Y, knowing these consequences believes that death is a preferable consequence than the pain of living without person X.

Gender imo, does not matter. Age only matters if it is a significant gap, lets say that the person X is eighty years old and person Y is forty years of age, person X is already passed life expectancy and with transplants like this has a low low probablility of survival, in this case we may have two people die instead of merely one.

Daleth · 07-18-2003, 04:50 PM

I agree with what Adrammalech said, but I've some things to add. Y ought to have at least some clue of how X would handle the sacrifice. It's possible that X could spend their whole life feeling like they are responsible for Y's death. For some people this would be unbearable. If Y wants to save X's life, Y presumably doesn't want X to live that life tormented either. Or Y could try to make it appear to X that the sacrifice was not intentional, I suppose.

Spifmeister · 07-18-2003, 09:15 PM

Since person Y and person X both still have there life ahead, it would not be be immoral for person Y to live if he wanted to. If person Y wants to live then person Y has no obligation to die for X even though X is younger then Y. though Y is in his twenties, both could die in the same year (at old age) if both were healthy, and bot could contribute just as much as the other. So as I have said before person Y has no obligation to X.

Emotional Dependents are people like parents, children, wife girlfriend. Now some of these Dependents could be dependent in other ways to Y, but I am only going to look at the emotional effects Y could have on his dependents (You can figure out the economic dependencies that Y's dependents have on him.

If a person does not want to die for someone else, it is end of story on the moral issue, it is is not wrong. If he is being push or forced then we have a different question and different proplem and this is immoral. Since I assume that this is not the case, then there is not a problem

Also to consider is the people that will be hurt if person Y dies, he is healthy and X is not. Y has to look at his dependents and how his sacrifices will effect them. Y may want to give up his life, but if he does not consider the effect his sacrifice will have on his dependents then that maybe immoral. Y needs to look at the emotion, the economical effects he has on his dependents and ask them how they feel about it.

This maybe hard but X is going to die, he does not have a choice in the matter, so those that are dependents of his will have to live with this if he does not get a donation.

-- Spif

MortalWombat · 07-18-2003, 09:24 PM

I know this is hypothetical, but since the liver is the only major organ capable of regenerating, why not do a living donor transplantation?

Quote:

The recipient receives a large enough segment of the donor liver to maintain body functions as well. During approximately two months, both parts of the donor liver grow to normal size, providing normal long-term liver function for the recipient and donor.

Secular Elation · 07-18-2003, 09:52 PM

Since person Y and person X both still have there life ahead, it would not be be immoral for person Y to live if he wanted to.

But the assumption is that Y actually wants to do this for X.

Of course, in any case, Y has no obligation to X. But if Y consciously wants to sacrifice so that X can live, is that moral or not? I think you already adressed this when you mentioned emotional dependants.

Philosoft · 07-18-2003, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secular Elation

Of course, in any case, Y has no obligation to X. But if Y consciously wants to sacrifice so that X can live, is that moral or not?

It seems to depend solely on the scope of one's moral system. If your moral system allows behaviors of the type, 'For any behavior B that potentially harms only the behaver, Y does B is a morally permissible act,' then "Y does B" is self-evidently a morally permissible act. The question then becomes, does doing B actually harm only Y?

Secular Elation · 07-18-2003, 11:16 PM

The question then becomes, does doing B actually harm only Y?

From that consideration, doing B could be harmful to emotional dependents, like family members.

BioBeing · 07-19-2003, 09:48 PM

I think I'd have to say NO - it is not OK for Y to do this. It becomes, essentially, Doctor assisted suicide. I am not against that in general, but I doubt this case meets the criteria. Why does Y want to give his life for X? Is it purely out of love for X, or is he just depressed and this was the best offer that came along?

Also - what are the chances in this theoretical case for a successful operation? Both may very well end up dying anyway.

Person Y should also be strongly encouraged to seek psychiatric help, certainly before the operation, but even if the operation is denied. I strongly question Y's motives for even considering this situation.

Secular Elation · 07-19-2003, 10:39 PM

Why does Y want to give his life for X? Is it purely out of love for X, or is he just depressed and this was the best offer that came along?

Does the reason matter? Why or why not? What degree of importance does Y's reason have on the situation?

Also - what are the chances in this theoretical case for a successful operation? Both may very well end up dying anyway.

It's possible something goes wrong in the operation. But it's also possible that it is successful.

07-18-2003, 03:37 PM	#1
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	Ethical Dilemma I wish to share a fictioal scenario in which I request your opinion on the situation. Person X is an individual who one day discovers that he has a rare condition in which his liver is slowly malfunctioning. In time, it will fail, resulting in his death. His doctors in turn have resorted to the donor list, where the only hope for Person X is to find a matching donor who can replace the bad liver. Person Y is an individual who happens to have a liver that is compatible with Person X's system. No other donors match. The problem is, in order for Person Y to donate his liver to Person X, Person Y will of course die. This means that Person Y will need a new liver himself to continue living. Assume that no liver matches can be found for Person Y after he/she donates, meaning that it will cost his/her live. Despite this, Person Y is still willing to donate his/her liver so that Person X will live. Additionally, assume that Person X is an adolescent in high school, whereas Person Y is an early 20's software programmer. Several questions: should Person Y be allowed to surrender his life so that Person X can live? Does Person Y have the right to decide whether he wants to do this or not? To what degree of a role does the age difference between the two person's matter? What if Person X was older and Person Y was younger--does that mean Person Y could not donate, since he hasn't lived as long as Person X? To what degree would the respective genders of Person X and Person Y matter in this scenario? Of the two, who's interests are more imporant? (NOTE: I know this is a silly and unrealisitc scenario--but consider it solely as a ficitonal "what if" situation).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-18-2003, 03:50 PM	#2
Adrammalech Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: East Lansing Posts: 72	Well in my little world if person Y cares for person X so deeply that person Y is willing to risk almost certain death rather than living without person X, then person Y is free to donate. Person Y is making this decision, knowing full well the consequences. The consequences in this case are, if person Y does not donate, person X dies. The second one if person Y donates then person X lives while person Y dies. Person Y, knowing these consequences believes that death is a preferable consequence than the pain of living without person X. Gender imo, does not matter. Age only matters if it is a significant gap, lets say that the person X is eighty years old and person Y is forty years of age, person X is already passed life expectancy and with transplants like this has a low low probablility of survival, in this case we may have two people die instead of merely one.

07-18-2003, 04:50 PM	#3
Daleth Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: NYC, 5th floor, on the left Posts: 372	I agree with what Adrammalech said, but I've some things to add. Y ought to have at least some clue of how X would handle the sacrifice. It's possible that X could spend their whole life feeling like they are responsible for Y's death. For some people this would be unbearable. If Y wants to save X's life, Y presumably doesn't want X to live that life tormented either. Or Y could try to make it appear to X that the sacrifice was not intentional, I suppose.

07-18-2003, 09:15 PM	#4
Spifmeister Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Near the centre of the U Posts: 31	Since person Y and person X both still have there life ahead, it would not be be immoral for person Y to live if he wanted to. If person Y wants to live then person Y has no obligation to die for X even though X is younger then Y. though Y is in his twenties, both could die in the same year (at old age) if both were healthy, and bot could contribute just as much as the other. So as I have said before person Y has no obligation to X. Emotional Dependents are people like parents, children, wife girlfriend. Now some of these Dependents could be dependent in other ways to Y, but I am only going to look at the emotional effects Y could have on his dependents (You can figure out the economic dependencies that Y's dependents have on him. If a person does not want to die for someone else, it is end of story on the moral issue, it is is not wrong. If he is being push or forced then we have a different question and different proplem and this is immoral. Since I assume that this is not the case, then there is not a problem Also to consider is the people that will be hurt if person Y dies, he is healthy and X is not. Y has to look at his dependents and how his sacrifices will effect them. Y may want to give up his life, but if he does not consider the effect his sacrifice will have on his dependents then that maybe immoral. Y needs to look at the emotion, the economical effects he has on his dependents and ask them how they feel about it. This maybe hard but X is going to die, he does not have a choice in the matter, so those that are dependents of his will have to live with this if he does not get a donation. -- Spif

07-18-2003, 09:52 PM	#6
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	Since person Y and person X both still have there life ahead, it would not be be immoral for person Y to live if he wanted to. But the assumption is that Y actually wants to do this for X. Of course, in any case, Y has no obligation to X. But if Y consciously wants to sacrifice so that X can live, is that moral or not? I think you already adressed this when you mentioned emotional dependants.

07-18-2003, 11:16 PM	#8
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	The question then becomes, does doing B actually harm only Y? From that consideration, doing B could be harmful to emotional dependents, like family members.

07-19-2003, 09:48 PM	#9
BioBeing Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 6,004	I think I'd have to say NO - it is not OK for Y to do this. It becomes, essentially, Doctor assisted suicide. I am not against that in general, but I doubt this case meets the criteria. Why does Y want to give his life for X? Is it purely out of love for X, or is he just depressed and this was the best offer that came along? Also - what are the chances in this theoretical case for a successful operation? Both may very well end up dying anyway. Person Y should also be strongly encouraged to seek psychiatric help, certainly before the operation, but even if the operation is denied. I strongly question Y's motives for even considering this situation.

07-19-2003, 10:39 PM	#10
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	Why does Y want to give his life for X? Is it purely out of love for X, or is he just depressed and this was the best offer that came along? Does the reason matter? Why or why not? What degree of importance does Y's reason have on the situation? Also - what are the chances in this theoretical case for a successful operation? Both may very well end up dying anyway. It's possible something goes wrong in the operation. But it's also possible that it is successful.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.