Hypothetical?

Question

This started up some heated debate elsewhere so I thought I'd introduce it to the distinguished members of the YA philosophy board :)

Let's say Jane goes into a deep coma. The doctors fully expect her to die. Her family agrees to let her organs be donated. The surgeon removes Jane's kidney and it is transplanted into Jill, who has lethal kidney failure and needs Jane's new kidney to survive.

But then, out of nowhere, Jane wakes up! Her family rejoices at the miracle. When Jane realizes that she is short one kidney, she is furious and is determined to get it back. However, she cannot regain full control of that body part without killing Jill. Is it acceptable, either legally or morally, for her to do so? (Bearing in mind that Jane can still live with just one kidney.)

I'm willing to bet that all the pro-choicers side with Jane and all the pro-lifers with Jill.

Of course I believe the doctors made a huge mistake in this case. We can sue them later. For the moment, how do we satisfy the conflicting rights of Jane and Jill?

Answer 1

I believe that they should not have taken the kidney from Jane without her consent, which she clearly did not give if she wants her kidney back. With that said, now that Jill has the kidney it belongs to her by law, so it would be morally and legally wrong to take it from Jill.

Answer 2

This is easy!

1) Jane was in no condition to make a choice under the circumstances and her family had the right to choose in her place. That choice is legal and binding.

2) Jill just so happened to be on the receiving end of this so she is in the mix just because.

3) The Dr, though they messed up, are mostly likely protected by "at the time" UNLESS there is some documented medical evidence that can prove that they "told" the family the comma story because they wanted to save Jill or whoever.

With that being said, in my opinion, legally or morally, everyone needs to get over it and enjoy what they have. If all lines are in order and Drs did nothing wrong, then Jane is just a medical miracle who just so happened to become a temporary organ donor.

Jane and Jill both could have died and no one would have benefited.... Unless of course malpractice was involved and then the benefit is based on whether or not the families feel that $$$ is a good replacement for someones life.

I dont think this has anything to do with PRO anything. What happened happened and no one is a liberty to undo it.

Answer 3

You have lost your bet already, I'm afraid.

The difference is that an embryo is just a POTENTIAL person, not an ACTUAL person. It may mature and become a being who later needs a kidney transplant, or it may spontaneously abort as approximately 25% of all pregnancies do.

It is a loss for Jane, certainly, but if she wants to argue with someone about it, it should be the family members who gave consent for the procedure, not the recipient of it. Maybe one of them can cough up a replacement kidney for the one she lost.

Answer 4

Morally, she should just leave Jill with the kidney. It's not like it's a life of death situation. I know it's her kidney, but that's just being petty. She should be happy that she saved someones life.

Legally, I think her hands are tied unless she gets and extremely good lawyer. When you're in that state and expected to die your parents (and i think in some cases your spouse) makes the decisions. They're in charge of you life when you're incapable of doing it yourself.

Did it say oragn donor on her driver's license? If it didn't then the docs. are wrong. If it did she has no reason to be furious.

Answer 5

Jane lost her right to herself when she became unconcious with a high probabilty of death. If she has a grievence it is with the doctor(s) not with Jill who accepted the organ on good faith. Just as Jane's relatives did on her prospects of life. I am fairly sure that the whole thing would go nowhere because it would be declared an act of God. In other words, it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Answer 6

Not having given permission for her kidney to be taken, she has the right to demand getting it back. ~
And free of charge.
If someone's property is converted even by close family under a wrong impression, that does not remove the owners right to such possession.

Answer 7

Hypothetical can be a bit dicey without concrete proof.