A woman awakes one morning and laying next to her in bed is an unconscious man. There is also standing above her another man who explains that her bed companion is a famous, Nobel-prize winning author.
The standing, conscious fellow points out that during the night, the woman and the author were joined by several tubes, and that at this moment, her body is keeping the author alive via these tubes. He needs her to remain connected to these tubes for a total of 9 months, at which point the author will again be able to live on his own.
However, if she disconnects the tubes before the 9-month period, the author will immediately perish.
IS SHE ETHICALLY BOUND TO LEAVE THE TUBES ATTACHED FOR 9 MONTHS? OR CAN SHE ETHICALLY SAY THAT SHE WILL NOT DONATE HER BODY FOR THIS TASK, IMMEDIATELY DISCONNECT THE TUBES, AND ALLOW THE AUTHOR TO DIE?
Please detail your ethical reasoning.
2006-11-28 16:44:03 · 8 answers · asked by NHBaritone 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I've heard this one before, but it was done with a man being connected to another accidentally after getting drunk and going to the wrong area of a hospital. It kind of puts things in a different light.
Personally I could never have an abortion and if someone asked me for advice I would have to urge them against it, but ultimately it is their life and body, so it is their life.
2006-11-28 16:57:22 · answer #1 · answered by haiku_katie 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Assuming the science behind this supposed experiment is possible, the woman in this case should have some say in what is happening to her. She cannot be "hijacked" as an artificial placenta without her consent in this manner. Without her consent, she has been medically kidnapped and raped. Assuming the comatose man has also not been able to have a voice in this, he is a victim also. Both lives must be considered.
Again, ASSUMING THIS TECHNOLOGY IS AVAILABLE, there is no reason to assume that a willing donor could not be found, who could take her place in being a surrogate-placenta for the comotose man. A switch could be arranged, especially if there was a monetary award for providing such care. All people involved would be celebrities: it would be a major scientific breakthrough, and widely celebrated. There is NO REASON to kill the comatose author, when another surrogate can be easily attained. Just "pulling the plug" would be murder. The man in a coma did not attack her: the doctor did.
If the woman signed up for this project, and submitted to the procedure to care for the author, she is obligated to fulfill her 9 month contract. To do otherwise is murder.
In any event, when lives are intertwined, there is always an obligation to save as much life as possible, despite the discomforts.
2006-11-29 00:58:34 · answer #2 · answered by MamaBear 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Any moral person would live out the 9 months with the tubes attached. Sure, life would be hard for that person, but it would be worth seeing the thankful smile on the author's face.
2006-11-29 00:48:54 · answer #3 · answered by AxisofOddity 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hello NH Baritone.. :)
I would stay attached out of Love and deep respect for life..whether I knew them or not..for if I can help but one person to stay alive, I would gladly stay attached for 9 months to all the tubes..and I would count it a Joy, that I had been chosen to help someone whom I did not even know.. :)
Great Question..10 Thumbs Up..
In Jesus Most Precious Name..
With Love..In Christ.. :)
2006-11-29 12:53:16 · answer #4 · answered by EyeLovesJesus 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The first question would be was it ethical to hook her up to another person that way without her consent?
The fact that her choice does remain exclusively hers (by the scenario you're describing) means she now has to face a question of morals. I would say that my disapproval would be with the man or whom ever it was that hooked her up in the first place. I would judge their action to be the most morally incorrect. No one has the right to force any decision involving moral obligation onto another.
I don't believe she is morally bound to having to stay in the situation, and that what ever she decided would be the correct choice for her. How can she conform to accepted standards of conduct in this situation when it started with absolute disregard for them to begin with?
2006-11-29 01:05:29 · answer #5 · answered by buttercup 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Does she have any choice?If yes,then one would have to analyse the problem from many prespectives.If no,then just have to go along with it.
Lets say she has a choice,then we have to consider the compensation,the upbringing of the woman,etc.etc.......
2006-11-29 00:55:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anger eating demon 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Kinky, man. I like it! I'd say it depends on if she screwed herself into that position in the first place.
2006-11-29 00:47:12 · answer #7 · answered by ATHEIST_BAN_ CHRISTIANITY 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No matter how you word it, ABORTION IS WRONG
2006-11-29 00:59:08 · answer #8 · answered by MR.D LOVE 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋