<< Let's
say you were hooked up to someone with failing kidneys. For whatever
reason (organ compatibility?), you were the only person that could be
successfully hooked up the the patient. However, you had to essentially
live in the room with the patient because if you were disconnected from the
machine that hooked your kidney to his/her blood supply the patient would
die. The question is, who has the greater right? The patient needs the
use of your body to live. But your quality of life is reduced to the level
of being a virtual prisoner. Is it ethical to allow the donor to say, hey,
I want a better life, its not my fault this patient has bum kidneys, and I
should be allowed to disconnect myself if I want? >>
This is of course Judith Thompson's argument in her paper _A Defense of Abortion_, which I mentioned in an earlier post. It has the problem, from a leftist point of view, of being based on the proposition that no one has a right to the means of life if others must provide that means when they don't want to. I used to point out to my right wing students that it was hard to attack Thompson and oppose welfare. To my pro-choice students I used to note that it was hard to use Thompson and defend welfare.
--jks