Life Dependency: A Thought Experiment

[FireDragons]

Read the following scenario and consider, then read the description and reply as you wish.



Dick had made a mistake, but surely the price he was paying was too high. He of course knew that level six of the hospital was a restricted area. But after he had drunk one too many glasses of wine with his colleagues at the finance department Christmas party, he had inadvertently staggered out of the elevator on the sixth floor and passed out on one of the empty beds.

When he woke up he discovered to his horror that he had been mistaken for a volunteer in a new life-saving procedure. Patients who required vital organ transplants to survive were being hooked up to volunteers, whose own vital organs kept both alive. This would continue until a donor organ could be found, which was usually around nine months later.

Dick quickly called over a nurse to explain the mistake, who in turn brought over a worried-looking doctor.

‘I understand your anger,’ explained the doctor, ‘but you did behave irresponsibly, and now you are in this position, the brutal truth is that if we disconnect you, the world-renowned violinist who depends on you will die. You would in fact be murdering him.’

‘But you have no right!’ protested Dick. ‘Even if he dies without me, how can you force me to give up nine months of my life to save him?’

‘I think the question you should be asking,’ said the doctor sternly, is how you could choose to end this violinist’s life.’

--------------------------------------

Stop here to consider the scenario before continuing on.

--------------------------------------

A pretty fanciful scenario, you might think. But think again. Someone makes a mistake, even though they should know better, possibly because they have had too much to drink. As a consequence, a second life becomes dependent on their body for nine months, after which time it becomes independent. Dick’s predicament mirrors quite closely an unplanned pregnancy.

The most crucial parallel is that, in both cases, in order to free themselves from their unwanted role as a human life-support machine, both the pregnant woman and Dick have to do something which will lead to the death of the being dependent on them. How you think Dick should behave therefore has consequences for how you think the pregnant woman should behave. Many would think that it is unfair to demand that Dick stay connected to the violinist for nine months. It would be very good of him if he did, but we cannot demand of anyone that they put their lives on hold for so long in the service of others. Although it is true that the violinist would die without Dick, it is too much to say that Dick is therefore a murderer if we assert his right to liberty.

If Dick is entitled to disconnect himself, then why isn’t the pregnant woman entitled to abort her foetus? Indeed, it may seem that she has more right to do so than Dick has to disconnect himself. First, it is not just nine months of pregnancy that she will have to deal with: the birth of her child will create a responsibility for life. Second, she will not be ending the life of someone fully grown with a talent and prospects ahead of him, but – in the first few months of pregnancy at least – a mere potential person that has no awareness of self or environment.

The parallels provide a way for pro-abortionists to tackle head-on the accusation that abortion results in killing by claiming that, nonetheless, the pregnant woman has a right to end the foetus’s life.

Of course, arguments can be made on the other side. The foetus is helpless, it is said, which is more reason, not less, to protect it. The inconvenience to the pregnant woman is much less than that to the effectively imprisoned and immobilised Dick. And it can even be claimed that Dick is obliged to stay connected to the violinist for nine months. Sometimes a combination of irresponsible behaviour and bad luck results in serious consequences which we cannot just walk away from. Perhaps, then, Dick’s dilemma is just as difficult as that of the pregnant woman and so makes it no clearer to us at all.

Source: The Pig that Wants to be Eaten by Julian Baggini
​

So, what side of the argument do you fall on? Does Dick have the right to disconnect himself, or is he now morally responsible for the life of the violinist? This thought experiment was designed to eliminate the idea of exactly when life begins as it is obviously no the biggest issue at debate.

 

[jayem]

It is a pretty far out hypothetical. But Dick never gave consent for the experiment, and he has no moral obligation to support someone else's life.

In my opinion, the fact that a woman becomes pregnant inadvertently does not obligate her to a full nine month pregnancy. Even if she knows that pregnancy is a risk, she still should be able to terminate--at least up to a point. If I play Russian roulette, I should know that I could shoot myself. And it would be through my own negligence. But that doesn't mean I forgo getting medical treatment to have the bullet removed.

 

[pantless rationalist]

Before I even address the OP, I just want to point out that there is no such thing as a "pro-abortionist". The term implies that an individual supports the idea of a woman getting pregnant with the sole purpose of having an abortion performed. I can assure you that this does not happen and I challenge anyone to find even one example of it taking place.

Now, on to the problems in the hypothetical:

The way the story is told is meant to cast Dick is a negative light, blaming his irresponsible consumption of alcohol for his plight. The OP seems to not realize that a woman cannot get pregnant by herself, and that oftentimes there is some sort of colluder, typically a man. So, for the case of the hypothetical, let's draw some parallels between the actions of the medical staff and the actions of a man.

• The medical staff failed to check his (apparently non-existent) chart before admitting him into surgery--we'll call that "man not wearing a condom".

• Medical staff didn't even notice that Dick was not in some sort of hospital attire or that he had alcohol in his system--we'll call this "man not caring about his partner's well-being".

• Dick was also unconscious before and during the procedure, so he was never able to give his medical consent--we'll call this "rape".

So given the fact that the "man" in this situation seems to be a heckuva lot more to blame for the outcome than the "woman", I don't see any reason why Dick shouldn't be allowed to disconnect himself; it would not be him murdering the violinist, it would be the medical staff creating a situation in which the violinist would e put at risk.

In short: yes, Dick is completely within his rights to opt for disconnection.

 

[Freodin]

What the previous posters seem to ignore is that it is not exclusively a question about Dick´s rights.

This hypothetical situation - as well as an abortion - is always a problem of conflicting rights.
Dick might have been the victim of neglectance, of carelessness or even "rape"... but does that somehow negate the right of the violinist (or the unborn) to live?

I would agree: "Dick is completely within his rights to opt for disconnection". But so would the violinist be completely within his rights to opt for a continued connection.

And now there is the problem of how to deal with these conflicting rights.

 

[pantless rationalist]

For the sake of the hypothetical, the violinist opted into the experimental procedure. There isn't any good parallel that I can think of to draw between that and a fetus, since the violinist was a fully consenting, (presumably) fully-informed adult. That's why I neglected to discuss the rights of the violinist: they can't be ported to apply to a fetus.

 

[FireDragons]

@jayem: Sometimes we need a far out scenario so that we can see what the issues in a matter really are. With regards to consent, I'll address that next with pantless rationalist's arguments.

@pantless rationalist: My apologies for using "pro-abortionist", the intended meaning, was "one who believes abortion is justifiable". Yes, poor choice of wording, but oh well.

I disagree when you say that the story is designed to make Dick look bad, and I think that you are using your own vision to make it appear that way.

The medical staff failing to check his chart: The story says nothing about this, it could be that none of the volunteers had charts yet, and that the needed information would be gathered before the procedure took place. Given that we don't have this level of technology yet, we do not even know if the too individuals require the same blood-type etc.

Medical staff not noticing Dick was not in hospital attire: Nothing was said about that, you are assuming that the other volunteers were in such clothing and that they were not in fact in street clothes.

Dick was conscious, although inebriated, when he lay down on the bed. If we can allow people to consent to sex while drunk, then Dick could have "consented" to lie on the bed, which is reserved for those agreeing to the procedure.

Yes Dick can be seen as being in the wrong, but so can the doctors. It is all a matter of how you interpret the situation since there are no details in the scenario that explicitly make it one way or the other.

@Freodin: Good eye, it isn't as simple as what is right for Dick, in this situation, and what ends up being the crux of the matter, is how we balance the rights of the two individuals.

@pantless rationalist: Once again, you've made an assumption. Maybe the violinist went into this willingly, but it is also possible that he fell into a coma due to his organs failing, and was unable to grant consent for himself. How then he came to be in the program is then irrelevant because it would not have been his choice.

 

[Freodin]

For the sake of the hypothetical, the violinist opted into the experimental procedure. There isn't any good parallel that I can think of to draw between that and a fetus, since the violinist was a fully consenting, (presumably) fully-informed adult. That's why I neglected to discuss the rights of the violinist: they can't be ported to apply to a fetus.

Of course any exemplary situation can only be compared to a certain degree, but I don´t think that this is really a problem here.

It is quite easy to add a further scenario, where the violinist was unable to consent, maybe having been hurt and in coma due to an accident.
Or even if he did consent to the procedure... did he consent to the risk of dying because he was accidentialy linked to an unwilling person?

And what even if he did, and now that the situation happens... is he previous contentions to potential risks a forfeit of his right to live?

If he now disagrees with being disconnected... does Dick´s right to freedom weight higher than the violinist´s right to live?


But I admit that this medical scenario makes me wonder (again) why the opposition to abortion has never bothered to persue the obvious solution to that dilema: invest in the research for a medical solution. Artificial pregnancy.

 

[pantless rationalist]

@pantless rationalist: My apologies for using "pro-abortionist", the intended meaning, was "one who believes abortion is justifiable". Yes, poor choice of wording, but oh well.

The correct term would have been "pro-choice".

I disagree when you say that the story is designed to make Dick look bad, and I think that you are using your own vision to make it appear that way.

My interpretation came from the doctor's reasoning that Dick "behave[d] irresponsibly" and the fact that the author, in her commentary, does not once contemplate the medical staff's behavior. I don't think that it is at all a stretch to argue that the author is already predisposed against Dick in this situation.

The medical staff failing to check his chart: The story says nothing about this, it could be that none of the volunteers had charts yet, and that the needed information would be gathered before the procedure took place. Given that we don't have this level of technology yet, we do not even know if the too individuals require the same blood-type etc.

Not having charts by a patient's bed is poor protocol at best and dangerous at worst. If information on a patient is not available on their chart, or if the chart does not exist, then the hospital's guilt in the mix-up is even more profound than if a chart did exist.

Medical staff not noticing Dick was not in hospital attire: Nothing was said about that, you are assuming that the other volunteers were in such clothing and that they were not in fact in street clothes.

If an individual is admitted into a hospital, they will be wearing hospital attire. This is done so that doctors have easier access to a patient's body to perform tests and to differentiate patients from visitors from staff, etc. This is a very reasonable assumption.

Dick was conscious, although inebriated, when he lay down on the bed. If we can allow people to consent to sex while drunk, then Dick could have "consented" to lie on the bed, which is reserved for those agreeing to the procedure.

But we don't allow people to give consent while drunk. Real-life situations involving sex and booze do admittedly have a lot of gray area, such as if both partners are drunk or if the couple are in a monogamous relationship. Medical decisions, though, do not. You aren't legally allowed to get a tattoo or sign a cell phone contract after consuming alcohol, let alone consent to major surgery.

@pantless rationalist: Once again, you've made an assumption. Maybe the violinist went into this willingly, but it is also possible that he fell into a coma due to his organs failing, and was unable to grant consent for himself. How then he came to be in the program is then irrelevant because it would not have been his choice.

If the violinist fell into a coma, then his medical proxy would be making decisions for him, so consent would have been given. No one would have been forcing anyone into the procedure.

All of the assumptions that I was forced to make were not only reasonable, but necessary. If I told you that a car was driving at 65 mph on the highway, it's not unreasonable to assume that the car's tires are round. Everything that I've assumed are just as reasonable as the tire assumption, and if any were untrue the hospital would be in very serious legal trouble.

 

[Nathan45]

I voted: Dick shouldn't be allowed to disconnect himself, but the pregnant woman should be able to.

I almost voted: Dick shouldn't be allowed to disconnect himself, but the pregnant woman should be able to.

but then it occurred to me that if this hospital is so negligent as to hook up dick mistaking him for a volunteer, their experimental technology probably isn't so good either, meaning dick's life is in danger. He not only didn't consent to the time, he didn't consent to the risks, either. Who knows if he'd survive the 9 months?

anyways,

The foetus is helpless, it is said, which is more reason, not less, to protect it.

the "foetus"--actually it would be an embryo in the early process of pregnancy--is a clump of cells with no significant brain function, no thoughts, no feelings, and also has none of the properties of a human being that make us human, never did have any of these attributes, and won't until about halfway through the pregnancy.

It has no friends, no family, no one who knows it, no one who invested any time into it and no social contacts whatsoever.

By virtue of the above, a person is an irreplacable member of society.
A several week old embryo is replacable by any fertile female given several week's time.

An unwanted embryo is no more worthy of protection than a random sperm in my nutsack.

That is all.