Is it morally acceptable to use force in life or death situations?

Question

Suppose a five year old child with a rare blood-type is dying from leukemia and her only hope of surviving is an immediate marrow transplant from the brother of her deceased biological father (the only known match). The uncle, who has had nothing to do with the child or her mother, refuses to donate his marrow. Is it morally acceptable to forcibly extract the marrow from him? Justify your answer and respond to problematic implications of your view.

Yes, this is preparation for an exam, but I have studied it, I am just looking for objections or agreements I might have overlooked or would want to consider.

Answer 1

No. It is morally reprehensible, but no. A person has the right to control their own body. Just as in the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. If you could force people to do things, then why not type everyone in the nation and make them give blood and marrow and a kidney as needed. It destroys a free nation. I am sorry for the child and I hope they find a donor.

Answer 2

I don't think anyone would dispute that force is morally acceptable in a general sense if we raise the stakes high enough. A person's right to their property and even their own life and body is valuable... but it is not of infinite value. If you balance enough on the other side the trade eventually becomes fair, even if we disagree about exactly how much it takes to produce that balance.

For example, we may not forcibly take someone's tissues to save one life, but what about a thousand? Or a billion? You see my point, I hope.

As for the specific example, we had probably clear up details so we're talking about the same stuff. Link 1 below talks about the general steps of obtaining a bone marrow transplant (and is also a good place to sign up for the National Bone Marrow Registry - which I personally highly recommend). You will note that the procedure described requires general anesthesia (which has a number of risks, including death), surgical access (which has a number of risks, including death), and several days of pain and inactivity (it's been described as feeling like you've been hit with a baseball bat). There is a newer procedure which involves taking drugs for a few weeks and filtering the necessary stem cells from your blood (less risky and painful but not without risk and pain)... but I think it would be hard to FORCE someone to do this.

And that's only half of the picture. Receiving a transplant is difficult at best. Approximately 30% die shortly after the procedure and 30% of the survivors develop long-term complications. This is not necessarily a panacea for our five-year-old either.

If we take the act as policy, there are other issues too. You are eroding the idea that people own their bodies, that they are free to avoid painful procedures they don't want, and that they can choose what to do with their time. These last factors can have a HUGE impact - a small amount of time, freedom, or money taken from millions of people adds up to a LOT.

Though this is closer to the line than some examples, I don't think I can agree with the prospect of the use of force in this case. I just keep imagining the worst possible outcome - we kill one person to get a tissue that doesn't stop someone else from dying for a total of one extra dead person, less freedom for everyone, and the cost of the surgery to boot. Sure it's not likely... but I wouldn't be willing to take that risk.

Answer 3

It would be morally acceptable, but very aggressive to use force to save the child's life against the uncle's will, as long as it would do no harm to the uncle, such as if he can regrow the marrow without any side effects.

It would be morally acceptable, but more of a compromise if he were reimbursed, such as the rest of the family gathering together a $1000 payment for his inconvenience and time off from work as well as cover all medical costs that were not covered by the girl's insurance. If cash were not acceptable, then perhaps a vacation package, like round trip airfare and a hotel for a trip to Vegas or a 3 night, 4 day cruise, or a collection of corporate donations such as personalized gift certificates for free dinners, a massage, a round of golf, tickets to a sporting event, and a detailed car wash. Any of these ideas would compensate him from other's generosity which could very well buy his interest or soften his heart.

It would be morally unacceptable if it was done without his knowledge, such as telling him he will just be tested to determine how to find a match, and then use the "sample."

It would also be morally unacceptable if he were forced to do it and there were known long term side effects or damage caused by the procedure.

It would also be morally unacceptable if he were forced to do the procedure without due diligence for acceptable volunteer donors.

Answer 4

It is not only unacceptable but also illegal to force the uncle to give up his bone marrow (if you were forcing him, it would hardly be a "donation", would it?).
This is sad and unfortunate but individuals should have the right to determine what does or doesn't happen to their person. (You will hear this same argument from people who support a woman's right to abortion.)
Now, if I were facing a life or death situation, I don't think I'd be thinking about any moral implications. I think I would be in survival mode, doing whatever was necessary to save my own life.

Answer 5

you can't "force" him physically.

it's his choice whether or not to donate his marrow.

of course, if there is ANY way you can convince him without violating his privacy, etc. then it's the mother's obligation to do so.

if he still refuses, then i have no idea. I don't think it's legal to force somebody to "donate" marrow, blood, marrow, etc. under ANY conditions.

In others words, he might be the harshest person on earth, but forcing him to do something that might have potential side affects, such as the PAIN, would be immoral.

Answer 6

no, because the marrow would be claimed property of the brother.