How do you respond to this ethics and morality thought experiment?

Question

A man awakens one morning and laying next to him in bed is an unconscious woman, apparently comatose. There is also standing above him another woman who explains that his bed companion is a famous, Nobel-prize winning author. Unfortunately, she is deathly ill.

The standing, conscious woman points out that during the night, the man and the author were joined by several tubes, and that at this moment, his body is keeping her alive via these tubes. She needs him to remain connected to these tubes for a total of 9 months, at which point the author will again be able to live on her own.

However, if he disconnects the tubes before the 9-month period ends, she will immediately perish.

IS HE ETHICALLY BOUND TO LEAVE THE TUBES ATTACHED FOR 9 MONTHS?

OR CAN HE ETHICALLY JUSTIFY CHOOSING NOT TO DONATE HIS BODY FOR THIS TASK, DISCONNECT THE TUBES, AND ALLOW HER TO DIE?

Please detail your ethical reasoning. (Please focus on his decision in the situation in which he finds himself.)

Answer 1

I like this challenge, and I'm curious to see how people will respond to it.

If it isn't readily obvious, I'd like to point out that the gentleman has been put into this situation unknowingly and without consent.

Answer 2

Interesting.
Practically, two things immediately would come to mind.
1. Is this standing woman even telling the truth? (For all I know the lady next to me is her junkie sister who OD'd on something and needs my body to survive.)
2. If it is all true, what guarantees that she will live? And how long will she live for? (Itd be very difficult to give up 9 months of your life so that a stranger can live for another 3 months on her own before dying.)

Also, I'd be curious what her Nobel Prize was for. Not that it makes a great difference. But I'd be much more inclined to do it if she were a Nobel Prize winner in the field of physics or medicine as opposed to literature. (The reasoning being, "this person may cure ______." vs. "this person may write ______.")
Still, I dont think thats that important. In fact, I'd be much more inclined to do it if she were a single mother of 3 children than if she was a nobel prize winner with no family or friends or loved ones.

But to finally answer your question. I would think one would be morally obligated to do the 9 months. What is the value of life? Its priceless. Yet you can put some price to your time. If you were to say no. I guess her death would not be your fault. But her death would be on your hands. Though you can't be blamed, you can be held responsible, if that makes any sense.

Ive never taken an ethics class nor ever even thought of the concept of ethics till I read your question. So I have no idea what the "right" answer would or could be. I personally wouldnt be able to disconnect the tube, because I know the decision and guilt would haunt me much much longer than 9 months. Ultimately, for anyone, its just a matter of greater value, your time vs a life. And of course things like selfishness or guilt or other factors can alter the perception of the value.

I wonder .... does the question change if YOU were the Nobel Prize winner and the lady in the tube is just a normal everyday blue collar worker?

-----

Just read the comment by AtheistGuy. How can a baby ever be considered "part of the mother's body"? That is pretty ridiculous. How do you define that? What are babies that are born prematurely but survive? Are they just now an external living part of the mother's body? As if a person lost an arm, yet the arm survives? What about a C-section birth? What about Siamese twins? Can one half simply remove the other half as he is simply removing "half of his own body"?

"Something else that is always a real consideration in the abortion argument - does being "hooked up" to another person endanger *MY* life? For expectant mothers, it most certainly can."

The key here is "certainly CAN". I'm tired of this argument. What % of abortions do you think are performed due to the mother's health being endangered?

Answer 3

At the outset this is a hypothetical question. Hypothetical questions are not in and of themselves realistic. Secondarily as the other answerer has suggested this has occurred out of the realm of freedom of will. Ethics and morality may be two different things in this situation. Given the limited amount of information, there is a moral imperative involved and that is that of trading one life for another for a period of time. There are some questions which need to be answered, but first let us look at the reverse ethics in that of how ethical would it be for the laureate to allow such a situation to occur. What kind of infringement are they placing upon the life of this individual. What income is he being deprived of and who will support his family if one exists? Are the needs of the many greater then the few (or one)? Say that the laureate has their accolades and what they have written benefits the world already, is there more they will contribute? Suppose that the gentleman might be interrupted from making his own contribution to the ultimate good of society. Can others serve the
same purpose, are there not machines which could also avail?

Frankly, your question is literally a little over the top and leads to more questions then answers. In my life I have had to in effect "pull the plug" on my father and seriously respect human life regardless of age or physical condition.

Answer 4

As the person didn't agree or do anything to get themselves into this situation, if they choose to disconnect themselves at that first moment, there is no ethical problem.

If, however, they agreed to do it and sometime later they changed their mind, that poses a great ethical and moral problem as it would then be tantamount to murder.

This scenario is used by pro-choicers to justify abortion. The problem here is that the 'host' had no choice before being hooked up. Except in the case of rape or incest, a woman does have a choice whether to risk becoming pregnant. And that's where the anology falls apart.

Answer 5

You hit an excellent moral descision that cuts to the point of some of the problems I've been thinking about when contemplating morality based on evolutionary principles.

So - we have two competing evolutionary drives: do we let the sick person live at a cost to someone's freedom, or do we let the sick person die since they would have died if they had not been hooked up to the person in the first place?

Well, we tend to favour a person's right to live over wanting them to die, based on our evolved evolutionary drive. At one point in our past, this wouldn't have been a consideration - those that are sick, leave them to die. It's only with the advent of modern medicine have we been able to "evolve" past a simple evolutionary decision.

As a famous South Park quotation goes:
Doctor: "We'd be playing God if we remove the feeding tube!"
Angel listening in: "Yes, but you were playing god when you put the feeding tube in!"

So, before I get to the ethical dillemma, maybe there's a better ethical problem that occurred before this scenario - is it ethical to use someone for food and take away their freedom for a long, but ultimately temporary amount of time, to help someone live, without their consent? I'd say absolutely not.

My priority to personal freedom overrrides the requirement to help a stranger in need. People die every day - based on requiring a new kidney or a new lung - that doesn't mean we should be harvesting organs from healthy people without their permission, just because it's required.

---

Now, to the problem at hand - do I get up and remove myself from the feeding tube, now that I've been placed in a position where my personal freedom was taken from me against my will, to kill someone? I don't think I would - I can't regain my personal freedom without the detriment of someone dying. Is my personal freedom for nine months worth another's right to exist for possibly another 40 years or so? I don't think so. Would I be forever mad that someone placed me in such a position against my will? You bet I would. But ultimately, I'd do it for a person considering I was put in the position to do so already.

---

What does this have to do with abortion though? Absolutely nothing - the analogy is a straw-man argument. Abortion is a deicsion by the mother to end a part of her body, not an external body. That's where the difference is - the baby can't survive without the mother's body, up to a certain date. Anytime up to that date, the baby is a "part" of the woman's body - not another individual lying on the bed beside you.

Something else that is always a real consideration in the abortion argument - does being "hooked up" to another person endanger *MY* life? For expectant mothers, it most certainly can.

Do I have to look after the author for a minimum of 18 years after the time they are removed from the tubes? You missed that part too. What if I'm broke, have no money to support an author living in my house? Is the quality of life that the author will receive going to be worth the nine months I spent lying in bed supporting her?

---

In order to make a good analogy, you have to use several of the actual qualities of the situation that is in question. You missed many of them.

Answer 6

As he does not know the woman, knew not what was to be asked of him, and is not married to her, he may leave if he wishes. If he would like to stay and save her life, that's just as good. He is not bound to her for any reason, so ethically, no.

.

Answer 7

It is entirely up to him. On the one hand, if this woman is so ill that she will die without being a remora on the man, isn't it her time to go? On the other hand, if he feels she is so valuable to humanity that her loss would be a detriment to the world, he is free to sacrifice his time to save her. It's a 50/50 situation.

Answer 8

He just spent the night with a woman who is not married to him. He has no ethics. Therefore he is free to do as he pleases.

Answer 9

Abortion is premeditated murder.....however this is a dumb analogy.