Suppose that someone in the world will die without a medical donation, and you are the only person, out of 7 billion people in the world, who is compatible.
For hypothetical’s sake, let’s say it’s a fictional disease that requires blood transfusions once a year, and your blood is the only blood in the world that will suffice for this purpose. You are able-bodied and can donate blood. You only need to visit your local neighborhood clinic once a year and donate blood; a medical team will fly the blood halfway around the world and handle all the logistical details; none of that is your concern.
Now, ethically and morally speaking, how much does the fact that you are the only existing compatible donor in the world obligate you to donate to a person in such need? Are you morally and ethically justified in refusing?
Considering I have a blood donation appointment tomorrow and I’m not doing it for some specific purpose, clearly I support donation.
Let me rephrase as two distinct questions though:
Should you save a life, given little to no cost to yourself? Yes.
Should you be forced to save a life, even at little to no cost to yourself? No.
I want to say that someone else’s need is not a claim on me, my time, or my body. Not a moral claim, certainly not a legal claim. So my answer would be that it does not obligate me at all.
I would probably still want to do it, but I would hope that no-one but me would know that I was doing it (somehow). Because if there were any social consequences one way or the other I am just contrary enough to refuse. Maybe.
Now here’s a counter question: what if the person you saved turned out to be the worst mass murderer in history? How guilty would you feel about having saved that life then? My answer is that I would not feel any more guilty than I feel obligated in the first place. But it does turn into kind of a pointless game when you think about it.
I forgot to mention that I would donate but they don’t want my blood, because I am a sexually active gay man. Now how guilty should I feel about being sexually active?
Agreed. (And I donated 13 gallons of blood to the charity fund at the local Blood Bank, before they stopped accepting my donations. I’d still be going if they’d take me.)
The word “should” has moral implications, and I agree with it. We should do this.
But if someone really doesn’t want to, then they can be exempt. I might hold them in some disdain (or not, depending on the reason.) I’m more sympathetic to someone who is afraid of needles than someone who follows some [a great deal of very bitter language deleted] restrictive religion.
By the way, I also favor “being a donor” as the default position, such that, if someone wants to be exempted, they need to carry an ID card opting out of being a donor. From past threads, it looks like most SDMB posters favor this idea.
While it’s “just blood” it it still a choice that I would think the medical team would want to make sure the donor is 100% on board with it. Just like organ donation from living donors. The donor has to go through psych eval and the team can halt the donation if at any time they think that person really isn’t giving solely for the purpose of giving and not out of any sense of obligation.
I agree. Golden rule, and all that. This one’s a no-brainer.
This one’s not so straightforward. We routinely do force people, at some cost to themselves, to save the lives of others - e.g. when we tax them to provide ambulance services, hospitals, police services, construct safer highways, pay for food inspection and regulation, etc, etc.
And yet I share your instinct that I can’t actually strap you to the table and forcibly extract a pint of blood. So I think we have to say that there are certain costs we are justified in forcing on people in order to save the lives of other (imposing taxation, restricting their freedom by, e.g., requiring them to get a driving licence before they can drive, etc) and other costs which we are not justified in forcing on them (depriving them of bodily integrity and autonomy). But whether we can articulate a neat little rule for identifying what we can force them to do and what we cannot - that’s not so easy.
Is there some reveal later in the thread rating to abortion?
One of the nice things they do with blood donation is a secret way of a donor saying, “No, don’t actually use this blood.” They can go through the whole process of having it drawn and bagged…and then destroyed.
The main reason for this is that someone with AIDS can donate, and his friends and family don’t have to know. He donates, the blood bank throws it away, and he can avoid censure.
Hope not…but, really, it could go either way! The same arguments and points, above, could support either a pro-life or a pro-choice argument. (Because, really, the two issues are just not similar enough for a direct comparison.)
This is another chance to illustrate the difference between ethics and morals, which are too frequently co-mingled.
Ethically, you have no duty to donate blood to anyone for any reason. Full stop.
Morally, you have only duty to yourself. If you find that visiting a hospital once a year is too much of a burden on you and that your inconvenience outweighs his life, that is your moral right. Most people (me included) wouldn’t have a very high opinion of your moral character for these beliefs, but morality is personal. No one can define your moral obligations but you.
Good point. I wonder if the idiom of “blood and treasure” is not so clear. I think most of would have an instinctive revulsion at the idea of requiring someone’s body parts, but demanding a tax to fund services is something everyone but anarchists would agree with. Then again, having a draft to fight a war was politically acceptable for many centuries (although not so much in the last few decades).
If somebody has been identified as a compatible Stem Cell (Bone Marrow or Peripheral Blood Stem Cells) donor, they cannot be compelled to donate.
If they are related to the patient (probably a sibling), I’m sure family members would try to convince them. Still, it’s the donor’s decision.
If somebody was typed by one of the registries but decides not to donate after a match has been found–the search for a donor continues.
A Stem Cell Transplant is not a guaranteed miracle cures but usually the best choice for the patient. I’m a bit old for an unrelated donor–I did register. But I’d give if it was needed. And donating bone marrow or PBSC is more involved than giving blood–but still pretty safe.
I’m coming at this from the other side - I currently need a transplant. When I first went on The List, many friends asked what could they do. Call and see if you’re compatable.
radio silence
It hurts, but it’s understandable.
I wouldn’t want anyone to feel pressure to be cut open and have an organ harvested just to keep me alive. I don’t believe anyone should be forced to give up anything, including blood, to preserve the life of another.
Now, if for some reason, someone needed a part of my brokedown body, I would offer it simply because I understand what it’s like to be in that position.
Thanks for this. I’ve been wondering about it since I watched Election.
Unless it’s your fault that this individual exists in the first place and/or that this individual needs blood, you should have absolutely no legal obligation to this individual. As for moral obligation, frankly, I myself might say that you have a moral obligation to give blood to this individual.
However, if it is your fault that this individual exists in the first place and/or that this individual needs blood, maybe you should be legally required to donate blood to this individual. After all, it appears to make more sense to have you suffer than to make this other individual suffer and die.
Actually, I myself don’t appear to have such a revulsion in certain specific cases (specifically when there is some sort of responsibility involved).
Exactly what transplant do you need, though?
If it’s a matter of blood donation, then I think there is a moral obligation. It’s a low risk procedure (probably as close to zero risk as could possibly exist in real life), and there’s no real cost. Your biggest cost is the time to sit there while they draw it.
In fact, I would say there’s a moral obligation to donate blood even without all the provisos in the OP. Just go do it!
Now, in cases where the risks and costs are higher, I don’t see the same moral/ethical obligation. I’m not donating kidneys to total strangers… and not even to family members until every other option has been exhausted.
Kidney. I have polycystic kidney disease.
Yikes! 
I apologize for asking, but are you at risk of dying without a new kidney? Or does being on dialysis allow you to live indefinitely without a new kidney?
Yes, I’m on dialysis. Yes, I have a high risk of cashing in my chips sooner rather than later. The average lifespan of someone on dialysis is five years, but that number is misleading - it includes the person diagnosed young and has been on for 20 years and great aunt Gertrude who, at 85, suffered failure and was on a week. Were I to choose to stop dialysis, I would be lucky to live two weeks.