My Kidney Challenge

[DiscipleHeLovesToo]

Which is why we have no one around today that needs a kidney transplant, of course.

Since God has done nothing for the many people who currently need kidney transplants, let's assume that he's not going to do anything for Sally either, okay?

God has already done all He can do short of forcing people to believe Him; and there are many that do believe and receive - you don't believe He has, and you don't see it either - could these things be related???

 

[bhsmte]

Okay, so now here's another question...

Why is it that we all agree that a person is not obligated to use parts of their body to keep others alive (even if the person with the useful body parts is dead), but then so many people suddenly change their mind when it's a pregnant woman who is being asked to use a part of her body to keep the life of another going?

Doesn't this seem like hypocrisy?

I don't follow.

How is a pregnant women, giving up their body parts when they are bearing a child?

 

[AV1611VET]

A rarely seen clear and unambiguous answer from AV here. Thank you.

You're welcome!

I do that from time to time!

 

[mmksparbud]

Simply because we have 2 kidneys doesn't mean everyone can do with just one. Many have only one functioning one and don't know it. You can live without dialysis on just half the kidney function of one kidney. Anyone who gives up one of their kidneys puts themselves in danger. It is major surgery and you can die on the table. It is harder to donate a kidney than it is to get one as donating requires the removal of a kidney from the body which involves much moving of ribs and stuff. A recipient keeps his non-functioning kidney, unless it is diseased and causing problems--it's less stressful on the body to keep it.
If there is no diabetes in the family, you may never need more than one, if there is and you give up one of yours, and you end up with diabetes, you may end up on dialysis. And not having anyone in the family with it doesn't mean you won't get it---there is none in any of my family anywhere--but me, and 2 of my brothers now have it.
And getting a kidney is no guarantee that it will work. The degree of success is much greater now with all the matching and anti-rejection drugs, but they still fail. I saw mother to son fail, sister to sister, brother to brother--all fail. Even when everything matches perfectly--it can still fail and nobody can always figure out why. The body is sooooo incredibly complex and no ne knows all there is to know about a single aspect of it. After so many centuries of knowing about the heart---it's only within the last few years that they discovered it has a type of neuron, which they thought only existed in the brain---who knows what will be discovered on down the road about the kidneys---I was a dialysis tech working in ICU and even in Neo-natal for 20 years. About every 5 years we got brand new machines we had to learn. What it is now, is vastly different from what it was even 20 years ago.

 

[durangodawood]

Okay, so now here's another question...

Why is it that we all agree that a person is not obligated to use parts of their body to keep others alive (even if the person with the useful body parts is dead), but then so many people suddenly change their mind when it's a pregnant woman who is being asked to use a part of her body to keep the life of another going?

Doesn't this seem like hypocrisy?

A couple things.
1. the mother typically had some role in bringing the new life into being. No such responsibility binds you or me to Sally.
2. the mother gets to keep all her parts after the birth, typically.
I'm "pro-choice". but the dont think your particular analogy cuts the issue quite so neatly.

 

[katerinah1947]

There is a little girl, named Sally. She needs a kidney transplant or she will die.

Do I have the right to force you to give up one of your kidneys to save her life?

Hi,

Yes, in my case you do have that right.

When do you want it?

LOVE,

 

[AV1611VET]

Doesn't this seem like hypocrisy?

No.

In your first scenario, you're asking if A should be obligated to sacrifice a body part to keep B alive.

In your second scenario, you're asking if A should be allowed to sacrifice B.

 

[rockytopva]

Kidneys... I have a friend who received a kidney transplant from a dying girl and the operation was not a success. My friend became huge with all that excess fluid in her body. She was once a beautiful woman and now is a very sad sight to behold. Just because you have a kidney transplant does not mean that the sun comes out and shines the rest of your life. The body is going to try to reject the new organs and the complications can become many.

To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit... -1 Corinthians 12:9
And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. - 1 Corinthians 12:28
Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? - 1 Corinthians 12:30


We need the gifts of the Holy Spirit operating in the church, which scripturally are available to us. There is also a divine touch that would do us all a lot of good if we can only get a touch of his robe!

 

[blackribbon]

I think death is a much more serious ramification...

Obviously, you know nothing about transplants....it is major surgery. And the person who qualifies for a transplant isn't at death's door...she can have dialysis treatments like a million other people living with failed kidneys.

 

[blackribbon]

Okay, so now here's another question...

Why is it that we all agree that a person is not obligated to use parts of their body to keep others alive (even if the person with the useful body parts is dead), but then so many people suddenly change their mind when it's a pregnant woman who is being asked to use a part of her body to keep the life of another going?

Doesn't this seem like hypocrisy?

Pregnant woman is keeping the use of her parts...not giving them away. After the baby is born, she will still be whole and have full use of the part.

 

[Nithavela]

There is a little girl, named Sally. She needs a kidney transplant or she will die.

Do I have the right to force you to give up one of your kidneys to save her life?

No, you don't have that right.

But I think that organ transplantation should be opt out instead of opt in, and everyone should be screened for their gene markers, so that they are alerted when someone with a genetic fit needs an organ.

If I was aware of a little girl needing my kidney to survive, and everything else checked out, I'd give it to her.

 

[blackribbon]

Having two kidneys isn't having "extra parts"...you use both kidney though you can survive with one, it isn't as efficient and you are in trouble if something goes wrong (not as uncommon as you probably think). The donor has life limitation now...he/she is no longer "whole".

And again, why can't this little girl get dialysis to keep her alive? Why is the transplant the only option?

 

[Dave-W]

Kidneys... I have a friend who received a kidney transplant from a dying girl and the operation was not a success. My friend became huge with all that excess fluid in her body. She was once a beautiful woman and now is a very sad sight to behold. Just because you have a kidney transplant does not mean that the sun comes out and shines the rest of your life. The body is going to try to reject the new organs and the complications can become many.

So here is a question. Last night I watched CSI Cyber and the story was about a guy who was hacking wrist smart watches to find healthy atheletic people who had a blood type and kidnapping them for an illegal kidney transplant for his wife.

What if the unwilling "donor" dies, the transplant takes (is successful) and the family wants the kidney back for burial with the rest of the "donor's" body? Or if the "donor" survives and wants it back?

 

[blackribbon]

So here is a question. Last night I watched CSI Cyber and the story was about a guy who was hacking wrist smart watches to find healthy atheletic people who had a blood type and kidnapping them for an illegal kidney transplant for his wife.

What if the unwilling "donor" dies, the transplant takes (is successful) and the family wants the kidney back for burial with the rest of the "donor's" body? Or if the "donor" survives and wants it back?

First of all, there is more to a "match" than just a basic blood type match. And unless there is some sort of technology out there that I'm not aware of or that my hospital doesn't use, you actually have to have a blood sample to determine someone's blood type....it isn't some non-invasive scan that can be done by a computer (or a smart watch). I don't know that I got to an athletic type first either...they often do things that strain the kidneys...I'd stick with normal joe who is very average, stays hydrated, and voids on a regular schedule (stay away from a nurse's kidneys, for example).

 

[Dave-W]

In the story the smart watches linked into the person's medical data.

The athlete type was the choice of the abductors.

 

[Tree of Life]

Okay, so now here's another question...

Why is it that we all agree that a person is not obligated to use parts of their body to keep others alive (even if the person with the useful body parts is dead), but then so many people suddenly change their mind when it's a pregnant woman who is being asked to use a part of her body to keep the life of another going?

Doesn't this seem like hypocrisy?

I was hoping for something a bit more thoughtful. A few responses:

1. You've changed your language here. Person (A) being morally obligated to give their body parts is totally different from Person (B) having the right to take Person (A)'s body parts. Right there the analogy has failed. But I understand what you're trying to say so I won't hold you to this.
   
   
2. A person very well may be morally obligated to give their unused body parts to keep others alive. I haven't seen anyone establish that they are free from this obligation.
   
   
3. Back to your analogy - one of the reasons that it fails is that it violates some of our deepest moral sentiments. Let's suppose that we accept your suggestion - mothers are not obliged to give their body parts to sustain the life of their children. Then this would apply across the board - both to unborn children and children outside of the womb. Yet we think it morally reprehensible that a mother would refuse to use her breasts to feed her baby. We think it reprehensible that a mother would refuse to use her body to carry and shelter her baby from the elements. So if you're going to stick with the bolded principle, you must explain why we think it's morally reprehensible in other cases (post birth cases) - or perhaps why we should also think it's ok for mothers to abandon their infant children.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Also, the mother is making the conscious decision to kill her unborn child. If I were to not give my kidney to Sally (which as others have shown is not the equivalent of carrying and nourishing an unborn child anyway, but even if it were) ... then failing to donate my kidney to Sally is still not the same thing as choosing to enter her bedroom and cutting her into pieces.

I may be morally culpable for not saving a life when it is in my power to do so, but that is still not the same thing as actively taking a life.

 

[AionPhanes]

So a living person has more of a right to an organ they can live without than a dying person who can't survive without it?

Yes, because the risks of the procedure and the time lost from work or other activities the living person may want to perform. You would also be imprisoning the person if they didn't want to go to the hospital.

 

[AionPhanes]

Well, I'm prochoice so I don't argue against a mother's right to choose.

 

[Dave-W]

because the risks of the procedure and the time lost from work or other activities the living person may want to perform.

How can you compare a few days of lost work with a lost lifetime, a PERMANENT loss of a father or mother, son or daughter, etc?