Posted: Jul 15, 2019 6:30 pm
Like a lot of these analogies, I think it works to some extent. That is to say it analogises with some, but not all, of the features of the situation of pregnancy that people tend to think are relevant. It may justify abortion in some situations.
If we call the organ donor "Donna" and the organ recipient (who is the analogue of the fetus) "Fergus", to keep things clearer than using pronouns, here's a brief summary of (some of) what we can say about the situation.
In this situation I would fully agree that Donna has a right to withdraw consent at any time.
The question is how many of those factors a person views as being in common with pregnancy. Does it, for example, have more in common with pregnancy than another situation where Fergus's life is in Donna's hands?
Here's one to consider. Fergus and Donna are potholers. They regularly explore dangerous and dark caves using expert gear like scuba gear or rock climbing gear. On one expedition there's a dark and dangerous cliff. Fergus and Donna agree that Fergus will abseil down, and that on top of securing his climbing equipment Donna will stay at the top to provide tension to the rope and stop it slipping. Part way down the rope begins to slip. It's quite a strain on Donna, but nothing she doesn't think she can handle although some skin is being torn away from the palms of her hands and it's quite painful. Is she entitled to withdraw her consent to hold the rope?
This time:
So a lot of differences from the first situation, and a different set of factors in common with pregnancy. Here my moral intuition (and I would hope other people's) is the opposite - Donna cannot release the rope and potentially let Fergus die out of convenience, she cannot withdraw consent.
But if we change one factor - what if Donna cannot be sure of holding Fergus up? What if she's being pulled over the cliff too? Then the verdict immediately reverses. What if Donna is not responsible for Fergus's situation, what if she's simply a bystander who happened upon his gear as it started to slip?
ETA: I should also have said that both of us have assumed, without making it explicit, a certain rights based form of reasoning which vindicates our legal position on issues as mentioned by both of us as well as Sendraks. Some people will reason in other ways, maybe using some form of consequentialism, for example. Those people may not agree with our moral intuitions about some of the analagous cases.
If we call the organ donor "Donna" and the organ recipient (who is the analogue of the fetus) "Fergus", to keep things clearer than using pronouns, here's a brief summary of (some of) what we can say about the situation.
- Fergus's life, and hence right to life are at stake.
- The situation is not of Fergus's making.
- The situation is not of Donna's making.
- Donna may not be the only person who can save Fergus's life.
- Donna is not going to kill Fergus in either eventuality.
- Donna's bodily autonomy, and hence right to bodily autonomy, is at stake.
- The consequences on Donna's body are likely to be permanent and potentially severe.
In this situation I would fully agree that Donna has a right to withdraw consent at any time.
The question is how many of those factors a person views as being in common with pregnancy. Does it, for example, have more in common with pregnancy than another situation where Fergus's life is in Donna's hands?
Here's one to consider. Fergus and Donna are potholers. They regularly explore dangerous and dark caves using expert gear like scuba gear or rock climbing gear. On one expedition there's a dark and dangerous cliff. Fergus and Donna agree that Fergus will abseil down, and that on top of securing his climbing equipment Donna will stay at the top to provide tension to the rope and stop it slipping. Part way down the rope begins to slip. It's quite a strain on Donna, but nothing she doesn't think she can handle although some skin is being torn away from the palms of her hands and it's quite painful. Is she entitled to withdraw her consent to hold the rope?
This time:
- Fergus's life, and hence right to life are at stake.
- The situation is of Fergus's making.
- The situation is of Donna's making.
- Donna is the only person who can save Fergus's life.
- It is ambiguous whether Donna is considering killing Fergus or letting him die in this situation.
- Donna's bodily autonomy, and hence right to bodily autonomy, is at stake.
- The consequences on Donna's body are likely to be short term and not severe.
So a lot of differences from the first situation, and a different set of factors in common with pregnancy. Here my moral intuition (and I would hope other people's) is the opposite - Donna cannot release the rope and potentially let Fergus die out of convenience, she cannot withdraw consent.
But if we change one factor - what if Donna cannot be sure of holding Fergus up? What if she's being pulled over the cliff too? Then the verdict immediately reverses. What if Donna is not responsible for Fergus's situation, what if she's simply a bystander who happened upon his gear as it started to slip?
ETA: I should also have said that both of us have assumed, without making it explicit, a certain rights based form of reasoning which vindicates our legal position on issues as mentioned by both of us as well as Sendraks. Some people will reason in other ways, maybe using some form of consequentialism, for example. Those people may not agree with our moral intuitions about some of the analagous cases.