We Have a Social Duty to be Reasonably Altruistic
This is an awful story: A man needs a bone marrow transplant to save his life, and the only suitable donor is his sister. But she won't do it. Now, he will almost surely die.
The law can't force anyone to be altruistic, of course. It would be wrong to take her bone marrow by force. But doesn't she have a social duty? This isn't like asking for a kidney, which anybody would be justified to refuse. It is bone marrow. Extraction isn't fun, of course, but it is an extremely low risk procedure and a life is literally at stake. A stranger would have a moral obligation to help, it seems to me. We owe each other that much. So much more, a sister.
It strikes me that unless there was an overriding health issue that compelled the sister to refuse to save her brother's life, she should be shunned socially. What say y'all?
Labels: The Duty of Altrusim
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 5:49 PM
20 Comments
20 Comments:
Obligation:
1 : the action of obligating oneself to a course of action (as by a promise or vow)
2 a : something (as a formal contract, a promise, or the demands of conscience or custom) that obligates one to a course of action
3 a : a condition or feeling of being obligated b : a debt of gratitude
4 : something one is bound to do : DUTY , RESPONSIBILITY
Duty:
2 a : obligatory tasks, conduct, service, or functions that arise from one's position (as in life or in a group) b (1) : assigned service or business (2) : active military service (3) : a period of being on duty
3 a : a moral or legal obligation b : the force of moral obligation
Responsibility means doing what's right because it's right, not because you're going to get something out of it. Likely you're not going to get anything back in return. So why do it?
The only thing I can think of is, when asked what the two greatest commandments were, Jesus responded: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, and all your strenght, and all your mind, and love your neighbor as you love yourself."
We should always help someone if we can. I'm with you, Wesley.
I don't think so. Jesus also only instructed his disciples to visit with the sick and preach them the gospel, he did not instruct them to heal them, nor did he say there was an obligation to develop medicine or search for cures, let alone medicine that requires cutting into other people. People feel more and more entitled to immorality and less and less respectful of life. I think organ donation, especially semi-forced organ donation, is part of the materialistic culture of death, and there isn't that much difference between this sister and a cloned fetus or a recently dead person, in each case, we should consider their organs off limits, rather than seeing them all as raw material for avoiding death.
I appreciate the distinction between an organ and bone marrow. The latter is very much like a more unpleasant version of donating a blood transfusion.
What I don't understand *at all* is the woman's words to the guy's girlfriend, "I'm putting my family first." I mean, what the dickens does that mean? If it's a matter of getting help with something during a brief recovery period from the donation or something, of course there'd be tons of people happy to help. Can she really be so ignorant as to think this is going to cause her some serious permanent harm? I'm afraid to me it rings like an excuse.
And how did they find out she was a perfect match if she wasn't tested? And why was she tested if she wasn't willing to donate? The whole thing is just bizarre. Is it possible there's some weird person like her husband who has some crazy idea and is now telling her she can't?
Yes, let's take Jesus' advice before start casting stones.
So - how many of you give blood regularly?
I'd like to give blood, but am not allowed. You have to weigh at least 110 pounds. :-)
That wasn't very nice, Lydia.
Just answerin' the question truthfully, officer.
Royale:
"Yes, let's take Jesus' advice before start casting stones.
So - how many of you give blood regularly"
Annually - being off my meds in order to give blood requires me to take about a week's vacation. Poor Lydia - there's nothing quite like the panic of having a large-ish needle jabbed into you and watching all the nurses suddenly surround you - "Honey, are you okay, you're pale, are you going to faint?"
Haven't fainted yet. I'm terrified of needles - they don't believe me. I usually have at least two of them hanging around me waiting for me to pass out. Muhahahahahaaaa!
Royale - please don't think me a wuss; needle phobia is real, though the verison I have isn't the classic trauma version.
http://www.futurescience.com/needles.html
I've got type 3 discribed on the page, but the nurses where I give blood list me as having the first type - vasovagal reflex reaction. Which is why they think I'm going to faint. Like I said, haven't yet.
John Howard:
" don't think so. Jesus also only instructed his disciples to visit with the sick and preach them the gospel, he did not instruct them to heal them, nor did he say there was an obligation to develop medicine or search for cures, let alone medicine that requires cutting into other people."
From THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE, St. Joseph Medium Sized Edition:
Matthew 9:35-38
Jesus went around to all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and curing every disease and illness. At the sight of the crowds, his heart was moved with pity for them because they were troubled and abandoned, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, "The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few; so ask the master of the harvest to send out laborers for his harvest."
Matthew 10:1
Then he summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits to drive them out and to cure every disease and every illness.
Matthew 10:5-8
Jesus sent out these twelve after instructing them thus, "Do not go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town. Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As you go, make this proclamation: 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, drive out demons. Without cost you have received; without cost you are to give."
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment, John. Jesus didn't say how to perform cures and raise the dead, he simply said, "Go do it." He is called The Great Physician because the better part of his ministry was curing the ill, raising the dead, and cleansing lepers.
Anyway, that's just to explain where I'm coming from.
"I think organ donation, especially semi-forced organ donation, is part of the materialistic culture of death, and there isn't that much difference between this sister and a cloned fetus or a recently dead person, in each case, we should consider their organs off limits, rather than seeing them all as raw material for avoiding death."
But we're not talking about organ donation - we're talking about bone marrow, which will reproduce in the body it's taken from. As for organ donation, as long as someone is willing to donate his body and as long as he is truely dead when the organs are taken, I see no problem, but I'm with you on this - organs should NOT be forcefully taken, organ donation should NOT be put ahead of doing everything possible to keep the owner alive as long as possible, and NOBODY has the right to decide that one person's life is more important than another person's.
I don't mind leaving my body to science or letting someone benefit from my organs when I'm not using the body anymore - I'll be somewhere else so it won't matter to me all that much - as long as I'm really dead when they go cutting the body up.
But like I said, this is a bone marrow transplant, which is a low-risk procedure for the donor, and I think that when we have the opportunity to help, and if one life is not being put ahead of another, we ought to help. The sister has the opportunity to help her brother, and his life is not being put ahead of hers. That's why I agree with Wesley - why is it such a sacrifice to help her brother out when she has the means and it's little risk to her? Why not help a stranger if you have the ability, even?
Matthew 5:42 -
"Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow."
I don't deserve pity on this one, Tabs. I get out of having to face needles just by being small!
Tabs, Jesus and the disciples did that curing through faith, not through material medicine. Material medicine is opposed to the works of faith that Jesus instructed his disciples to do. There were such things as doctors back then, and probably even medical schools and apprenticeships, and yet Jesus did not instruct anyone to become a doctor, not even the rich kid that was asking what else he needed to do besides keep all the commandments.
And even with all of his enormous powers, he still let loads of people die all around him, in fact on the crosses right next to him. Everyday, there were hundreds of sick and dying people that he could have run around and healed easily, but he wasn't worried about that, he just let things take their course while he gave sermons about mustard seeds and lillies, because that healing of the spirit was more important. He gives everlasting life, not long-lasting life.
I presume Wes' position would be different if the sister were being asked to donate and egg which would be used to create a cloned embryo from which stem cells for the needed cure were to be extracted (destroying the embryo). Consistency, anyone? Oh, that's right, a pre-sentient embryo has moral standing. Forgot I was in Wonderland.
Joe:
"I presume Wes' position would be different if the sister were being asked to donate and egg which would be used to create a cloned embryo from which stem cells for the needed cure were to be extracted (destroying the embryo). Consistency, anyone? Oh, that's right, a pre-sentient embryo has moral standing. Forgot I was in Wonderland."
Problems:
1) So far, you look it up and most scientists say that you get better benes from adult stem cells than embryo stem cells. See Wes' previous posties for confirmation and links to his sources.
2) An unborn baby doesn't get a say in whether or not she is killed for her cells. An adult woman over the age of 14 is above the age of reason and can make a reasonable decision to help if she has the ability to do so.
3) Holding the lady down and *forcing* her to donate as as evil as killing an unborn kid for her cells.
4) Donating bone marrow doesn't risk killing the woman to any great degree. Bone marrow grows back and the small amount needed won't severely affect her lifestyle after a short recovery period. Destroying an embryo kinda destroys it.
5) From the Webster Online Dictionary -
Destroy:
1 : to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of; also : to ruin as if by tearing to shreds
2 a : to put out of existence : KILL b : NEUTRALIZE c : ANNIHILATE , VANQUISH
So, your analogy is false - there's no destruction of the woman involved, whereas an embryo must be destroyed; the woman's marrow has a HIGH likelihood of helping her brother, whereas embryo stem cells are more apt to produce cancer than cures; the woman is old enough to make a decision while the embroy doesn't have the full reasoning capabilities to give its consent; and while Wesley, Toad and I think that she *should* help because the above conditions are met and the risk is very small, we in no way advocate forcing her to donate her marrow, but an embroy is forced to donate its cells without consent or the ability to give consent.
If you're gonna use an analogy, please try to stick to ones that actually have some significant parallel to the object you're comparing. In this case you fall flat because of the vast differences labled above. Good attempt, but not well thought out. I give it a B-.
No, Joe: First, human cloning is immoral. But that issue aside, the dangers of egg extraction are such--serious infection, infertility, death, etc., that such donations would not fall within the "reasonable" moral duty for altruism.
Uhhh, did I not make it clear that I do not consider a human embryo to have moral standing? Ergo, destruction thereof is no more morally problmatic than the discarding of whatever waste remains from a marrow extraction, nor is the creation of such immoral in my view. And as far as the putative dangers of egg extraction go -- and can't we assume in this circumtance that a single egg would suffice, obviating the need for the allegedly dangerous hormone dosages? -- I suspect those with moral/religious qualms about such matters of willingness to distort the facts of such risks to bolter their position.
My suspicions that those with moral/religious qualms to bioengineering do not blanch at distorting facts to bolster their positions extends to the oft-repeated notion that adult stem cells are a better avenue to tangible benefits than embryonic stem cells. And Leon Kass and his ideas are still Looney Tunes. Philosophically, I'm reassured by the fact that opposing bioengineering cannot be an adaptive behavior and that those that do so must be at an evolutionary dead end. From a personal perspective, however, I'm a bit concerned that Luddite failure to embrace a utilitarian and libertarian approach to these emerging technologies may forestall the inevitable long enough that I or those I love might suffer. Put another way: if I or someone I care about needs a new heart, and same can be grown in a cloned husk with just enough lower brain stem activity to run autonomic processes, NOT to generate consciousness, I'll put the fishtank in my house, and if you mean to stop me, bring heavy ordnance.
This blog certainly doesn't distort facts. And the real prevaricators are generally the pro cloning side. But be that as it may:I like your posts Joe, because they demonstrate the cold social Darwinism that is inherent in casting aside human exceptionalism and the intrinsic value of human life.
Human exceptionalism and the intrinsic value of human life arise not from our biology -- which is unremarkable and shared to a greater or lesser degree with all other life -- but from the facts of human consciousness: self-awareness, volition, abstract thought, high order learning, and the other marks of the thinking human that make us unique on this planet. Before those capacities attach, or after they're irretrievably gone, the exceptionalism and intrinsic value don't exist -- and insisting to the contrary devalues our humanity.
You are merely taking one aspect of biology, the presence of consciousness, and creating moral presumptions from it--which is not a matter of science but values and philosophy. That is no different than my approach. Science can't tell us right from wrong. That is beyond its capacity.
Hmmm, is the presence of conciousness an aspect of biology, or, is biology an aspect of conciousness? I think the former view marks one as a materialist. I am an idealist, I think the created world is being constantly created out of consciousness according expectations, or patterns of morality, according to what should become.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home