But nowlet me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourselfback to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconsciousviolinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society ofMusic Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that youalone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, andlast night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so thatyour kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own.The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Societyof Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we hadknown. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. Tounplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. Bythen he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged fromyou." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubtit would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have toaccede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still?What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but nowyou've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest ofyour life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, andviolinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and toyour body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide whathappens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." Iimagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that somethingreally is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm
Take Siamese twins (nowadays called conjoined twins). Youdidn’t consent to this. You simply found yourself shackled to your Siamesetwin. And it’s not for nine months. It’s for life.
This is far more invasive than pregnancy. Far more confiningthan pregnancy. You have absolutely no privacy. Absolutely no autonomy. Nocontrol over your own body. You can’t go anywhere without taking your Siamesetwin along. Can’t talk to anyone without having your twin overhear you. Can’thave a single moment alone.
I believe there are cases where it’s possible to surgicallyseparate conjoined twins, but the procedure will result in one twin survivingwhile the other twin is killed in the process.
Would it be ethical for a Siamese sibling to have his twinsurgically killed to free himself from his conjoint twin? Suppose the twindoesn’t consent to the operation. The twin doesn’t wish to die.
Still, isn’t his fratricidal sibling entitled to do whateverhe wants with his own body? Isn’t bodily autonomy his inalienable right?
Or suppose his twin consents to die for the sake of hisSiamese sibling. Is consensual fratricide ethical? Or is it wrong for one brother to kill another brother, evenif his sibling agrees to be die at his brother’s hand (via the surgeon’sscalpel)?
Given how ruthless abortion proponents are, I’m not optimisticabout how they’d answer these questions.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder