Wow…I really tried to make that as cut and dried as I could.
The thing is, Smapti, someone is going to die regardless. No two ways about it. The teenager has also done nothing for which he deserves to die. In fact, he’s even more blameless because the old man knew his drinking would probably kill him but he kept on drinking anyway. Also, it’s important to remember that my hypothetical explicitly stated that there was a good chance that old man probably wouldn’t be able to look after the liver once he got it.
Okay, how about this. Same situation, but this time the old man has said that, come what may, he’s going to kill himself on his 80th birthday like Ruth Gordon in Harold and Maude. Would that sway you?
Yes he has. He chose to destroy his own body, depriving himself of an opportunity to live his life. He does deserve to die.
ETA: Let’s make this more extreme. The old man, of sound mind and sound body, decided to remove his own liver because he likes proving absurd absolute statements posted on internet message boards incorrect. He directly and knowingly took an action that, absent an external force, would cause his own death. Does he now deserve to die?
And neither has the old man, which is why it is wrong to decide that one of them is more deserving of life. Thus, a lottery is the only fair way to make that decision.
Irrelevant. Alcoholism is a disease, not a moral failing for which people deserve to be punished by denying them lifesaving treatment.
Irrelevant. He’ll be even less capable of looking after himself if he dies for want of a transplant.
Smapti, what you don’t seem to be getting is that organ transplants are a very tricky type of operation. They don’t always work – sometimes, no matter what, people reject them. And this is a case of a sum-zero game. Someone’s going to die no matter what. It’s not “who deserves one”, it’s not “condemning someone to die”. It’s “how can we use this organ best”? Is it cold? Yes. But until we can guarantee organs for everyone, that’s the only way we can make sure they’re used wisely.
Which should motivate you to sign up as an organ donor, btw, in case something happens to you. If more people did that, there would be less people “condemned to die”.
The factors you list are metafactors which do not judge the patient as morally worthy or unworthy of having their life saved. Denying someone an organ transplant because they’re not likely to be compatible with the organ available, or because it’s too far away, or because they’re at high risk of not surviving the operation, is different than denying them a transplant because you think someone else deserves the organ more.
Why? Because you’re personally uncomfortable with it?
Let’s go through a few scenarios:
Scenario A: A slave living in the American South in the 19th century suffers every day–kids taken away, beatings, rapes, having to work all day in the sun with no shade, no chance to escape, nowhere to go. Life is nothing but misery and there’s no way out. Would it still be wrong for the slave to kill him/herself?
Scenario B: (Actually, this one is playing out right now) A friend’s friend, J, is suffering from scleroderma. Her digestive system has turned to stone. She eats and excretes via tubes. She is skin and bones, can’t get out of bed, and is on morphine to try to dull the pain, which can be excruciating. One of these days, she may decide not to exist like this anymore, so she increases the morphine dose and dies. Is that wrong?
Scenario C: You’re a woman, living centuries ago or now, doesn’t really matter…whose people have been decimated by a neighboring tribe or country. Their soldiers are coming for you. You know from experience that what awaits you is an existence filled with rape, beatings, torture. You decide to commit suicide rather than go through all of that. Is that wrong?
Ah. Well, I can see the difference between you and me on this issue more clearly now.
I might agree with you, were the scenarios mentioned not so horrible. I have to take into account the other factors involved and weigh them. I can’t say “it’s wrong” or “something is better than nothing” (you said that in my Brittany Maynard thread), because it’s just not that simple.
I’d also argue that it’s wrong for anyone to have to suffer through rape, torture, and pain, especially if there is no avenue of escape besides suicide.
I have a feeling that you might change your tune if you were the one faced with some horrific scenario–and no, I wouldn’t wish it on you.
How about this: you have incurable cancer. Your doctor says that with chemo, you could live, at most, five months, and you’d have to go through some serious suffering. Without it, six weeks, although they could try their best to make your death comfortable. So which do you choose? Keep in mind, it’s five monthts at most.
Well, I haven’t read them. And even if I had, then I feel that makes your position even LESS compelling. :dubious: