Jane checks into the hospital feeling unwell. Blood tests determine she is experiencing kidney failure and without a transplant, she will become very ill and die, quickly. Jane has a very rare blood type, so it is nearly impossible to find a donor kidney, even if the waiting list weren't already so long.
Amy is Jane's sister. Amy has the correct blood type and chances are, a kidney transplant between the sisters would be a success.
However, Amy is scheduled to play in the finals for her college basketball team. She has plans that would have to be put on hold or abandoned if she went through the surgery. She is studying ferociously to maintain her GPA and graduate at the top of her class.
Amy and Jane have never been close, so there is no sisterly bond between them. There are no other siblings and both parents are dead, so there is no one else to donate a kidney.

Now my question is this: Who is right? Who has the better point? If Amy doesn't give Jane a kidney, Jane will die. If Amy does give Jane a kidney, it could seriously affect Amy's life, both immediate and in the future.
Is Jane being selfish, demanding that Amy put her life on hold for a sister she barely knows?
Or is Amy being selfish, refusing to save her sister's life in favor of petty things?
****************************************
****************************************
09-11-02, 08:11 AM
Texan-In-Exile
Amy's life may be changed by donating a kidney, but at least she will have a life.

Without a donor kidney, Jane won't even have a life.

If my sister needed my kidney, I wouldn't even need time to decide!

09-11-02, 11:42 AM
Prothero
Don't really know. Based on the facts given, with the missing explanations, it certainly seems Amy is self focused and selfish - which Jane, in the story, is not (she lacks the ability to be selfish if she can't "demand" the kidney.)
Unless there is something significant hidden in the reason they're not close or some additional, private reasons Amy won't donate, then I vote against her.

But there is the suggestion that Amy considers her own sister with the same affection as a stranger - how many of us will go down for "matching" and donate if we can save someone we don't know?

09-11-02, 02:34 PM
displacedNYer
I think they are both being selfish. Jane is being selfish by demanding her sister give her a kidney now rather than respecting her wishes, using dialysis, and looking for anohter relative that is a match.

However, I also think Amy is being selfish by not recognizing the opportunity she has to change her sister's life for the better.

And I think their parents raised two very nasty girls. Just my opinion.

09-11-02, 03:06 PM
faber
I know I expect a lot of my near blood relatives, but expecting them to hand over an organ is a bit much even for ME to stomach.

The kidney sufferer should not even ask. If the potential donor wants to donate, fine.

09-11-02, 03:14 PM
MrsS
For me, there would be no question...of course I would drop everything and give up a bodily organ for my sister...If Amy had some ethical/spiritual issue with the transplant, I could understand her hesitation, but in ten years NO ONE will care if she played in the game, or what her class standing was...under the circumstances, I am sure the school would work with her about the classes.
Jane's life should outweigh Amy's concerns about basketball and GPA.

09-11-02, 11:08 PM
Wildflower63
Classes can wait till next semester. Sports can wait as well. The future of the sister can only be held up for a short period of time when you look at the big picture.

Death is final. The kidney transplant can't wait. The sisters may not be close now or not in the past. They are sisters though. You never know what the future holds.

I don't see anyone without an ounce of compassion could refuse the sister her life unless there are some very extreme circumstances (criminal behavior, noncompliance and the kidney would be for nothing, that sort of thing) that would lead one to believe that her life was not worth living.

09-12-02, 03:15 AM
babthrower
There was an actual case where an only child developed a disorder than required bone marrow transplant. No suitable donor could be found. The parents conceived another child to become a bone marrow donor.

Sometimes one should accept a medical problem, even a fatal one, rather than viewing one's nearest and dearest as sources of meat.

09-12-02, 08:23 AM
MrSensitive
Screw that.

A person's body is their own to do with as they see fit.
There is nothing wrong with being selfish- especially with one's own body parts.

Mr(kidney houston)Sensitive
09-12-02, 11:29 AM

displacedNYer
I agree with Mr Sen. It seems as if the younger sister is bucking for a scholarship. Yes, it is selfish, but if she and her sister have never been close I am sure there is a reason.

In my belief system you don't go to extreme measures to sustain life. Routine surgery, routine medications...those things are okay. Fixing someone up after an accident is okay. Genetic illess is a gray area (in my beliefs, if you are born with genetic illnesses then you weren't supposed to live.) Bringing a child into this world to "fix" one that isn't working right is so far beyond the limits of my beliefs as to be horrific. What do you do with the new baby after its served its purpose? Will they love it like a child, or if the older child dies do they resent the new child for not "working right"??

I don't know if I would donate a body part to anyone, even my siblings (both of whom I am very close to.) It took me more than a year to decide to have a thyroidectomy without which I would have died. I waited until they found the cause of my illness - it was pollution and exposure to radiation, not genetics. If it had been genetic, I would not have had the surgery.

So for me, if the reason my sibling or child or anyone needed an organ was the result of an accident or non-genetic illness, then I would do it. But if it was genetic I would not.

09-13-02, 05:47 AM
Jelp01
I remember the case where the parents of a very ill child conceived another child for purposes of "harvesting" bone marrow for a possible donation. In that case, the older girl survived and is doing well, and the younger was running around the hospital, one hour after donating her marrow, as if nothing had happened at all. And she is very much loved by her family today, and probably would have been no matter what.

And as for those born with genetic disorders, my niece Krystal was born with Down's syndrome. I'm sure not going to be the one to tell my sister and brother-in-law that she "shouldn't have been born".

As for the case above, there is nothing requiring Amy to give Jane anything, be it a kidney or whatever. If I were in that situation, and I didn't donate a kidney, and my sister died, I wouldn't be able to live with myself, but that's just me. It would be a very nice idea for Amy to sacrifice some small part of her life to save her sister's, but nothing says she has to.

09-13-02, 10:40 AM
Elexina

quote:Originally posted by babthrower: ...The parents conceived another child to become a bone marrow donor.


I saw that on ER. I don't know how true-to-life it was, but on the show at least the younger child was terrified and felt used and the parents couldn't even see it. That kind of a demand placed on someone incapable of making her own choices is wrong, I think.
I just think it's wrong to demand that ANYone do anything to this extent, regardless of the relationship or outcome. I'm not sure who I feel is more wrong in this scenario -which, by the way, I stole from ER as well. razz

09-13-02, 10:45 AM
displacedNYer

quote:
And as for those born with genetic disorders, my niece Krystal was born with Down's syndrome. I'm sure not going to be the one to tell my sister and brother-in-law that she "shouldn't have been born".

There is a difference between raising a child who will survive but needs assistance and birthing another child to replace parts that don't work on someone else. The difference is the type of genetic disorder. Most people with Down's syndrome need assistance and medical care, but do not need organ transplants, life support, and other extreme measure to be kept alive on a bed while they can't move or even think.

My cousin died of Tay Sachs. Her parents did everything they could to keep her body alive, even a year after her brain ceased to connect to her body. The only thing that baby felt for her entire 3 years of life is pain. Why do that to someone you profess to love? Where is the love in keeping someone near comatose, in pain, unable to move or even breath on their own? Why not remember them when they could do those things, and let them go in peace?

Your example is flawed in that the type of genetic disorder is generally not fatal.

09-13-02, 02:21 PM
babthrower
Elexina, I saw the incident on a medical program on Discovery channel. It may well be that ER used it as the basis of a show, since it's a very controversial and emotional issue.

By the way, has anyone noticed how often CSI uses plots based on either actual incidents or 'urban legends'? e.g. the one about the scuba diver found dead in a tree after a forest fire. The idea was that the helicopter scooped him up from the water and dropped the whole load, water and diver, on the fire.

This never happened.

Last night I watched a show about a fireman wrongly accused of killing his family. There was an actual case of a fireman convicted of killing his family. Circumstances were too similar for it to be a coincidence.

Also the show last night was pretty bad. The first tests found hydrocarbons which caused the investigator to conclude gasoline was used as an accellerator. After much futile research, Grissom couldn't figure it out. Turns out it was another hydrocarbon (not gasoline)and had an innocent explanation. Heck, I'm not even an ordinary chemist, and even I know there are lots of products that contain hydrocarbons. So why was the highly trained and dedicated Grissom confused? Bad writing, that's how. The show is definitely going downhill.

09-14-02, 08:08 AM
Jelp01
NYer, you're right. My example WAS flawed. I realized that after I posted. I stand by my other points in the post, though.

09-14-02, 09:50 AM
displacedNYer
If I had a child with Down Syndrome I would do everything to give them a great life. Just so you know smile My mom has worked with handicapped people my entire life, and I grew up spending a lot of time with them (just about every day). So your sister and brother in law have a long hard road, but a great kid, I am sure.

09-14-02, 02:43 PM
Elexina

quote:Originally posted by babthrower: ...e.g. the one about the scuba diver found dead in a tree after a forest fire. The idea was that the helicopter scooped him up from the water and dropped the whole load, water and diver, on the fire.
This never happened.

So what? Who cares if it never happened? It still makes for interesting TV viewing.

quote:...The show is definitely going downhill.

I must not have seen the show you were refering to, but I still think it's doing well. I took forensic science and if they made it ALL true to life it would just be damn boring. Regardless, it's still better than the voyeuristic trashy "reality" programming that's on the rest of the time.

A lot of television shows use real-life cases. Law & Order does it all the time. I just couldn't get my mind around that ER episode, couldn't figure out which sister I more sympathized with, and wanted to see what other people thought.

09-14-02, 04:51 PM
displacedNYer
If you are very interested in actual forensic cases, babs, I recommend "The Real Detectives" on TLC. We used that show as a reference when I took Forensic Anthropology.

09-14-02, 10:42 PM
babthrower
Thanks, Dis, I'll check it out. I love those shows, 'Cold Case Files' and a Canadian show, 'Exhibit A'. I like the way the problem starts out as huge and gets whittled away by detective work and forensic work. CSI is a good show, too, but like ER it is a dramatized version so is less authentic and concise. I still think they shouldn't base their show on urban legends. There was another CSI case based on a guy who had his kidneys stolen, based on an urban legend.

09-14-02, 11:39 PM
displacedNYer
I don't understand what the difference is if they base them on urban legends or if they just make them up cold? Its fiction, whether the writers base it on a real story or not.

Just my opinion smile but "The Real Detectives" is really good.

09-15-02, 12:39 AM
Wildflower63
Rights of Whom? ...I've been inspired
I heard about that family that had another child to save the one that needed the bone marrow. I don't disagree with their decision at all. Their child would have died. I think they would have opted to have another anyway. Now they have both children alive and hopefully healthy. I don't see that they did anything unethical at all with their decision.

09-15-02, 01:08 AM
babthrower
Well, Displaced, maybe I'm being too picky here, but I think a show about forensic science should be as true to actual or possible events as it can be. To those like myself who follow shows which deal with actual events, what is amazing is the drama and complexity of real cases. So it seems kind of cheap to use urban legends as the basis for dramatized programs like CSI, when the real stuff is so great! The potential for dramatization is just as good whether you use plausible cases based on events which actually happened, or which could happen, in a real case, or whether you use urban legends or cases which could never happen in real life.

I just think the former is classier and more interesting.

[This message was edited by babthrower on 09-15-02 at 01:21 AM.]

09-15-02, 10:56 AM
displacedNYer
I understand where you are coming from bab, but there might be ethical issues with replicating actual events precisely. If you were attacked, would you like to see it replicated on CSI?

09-15-02, 01:21 PM
babthrower
No, I'd want them to conceal my indentity by an alias and by changing the location and so forth. But if the story illustrated how much evidence is left at any crime scene, and how hard it is to destroy evidence in the light of modern forensic science, I would be in favor of them using the story. It might deter other criminals.

09-15-02, 03:13 PM
displacedNYer
Ah, but it might also give them information on what to do to clean up after themselves.

09-15-02, 03:48 PM
babthrower
Displaced, that's a very good point, and in fact some criminals have used such information. But most of them have neither the knowledge or the equipment to do it right.

True illustration: a guy who knew about percussion marks on bullet casings placed empty casings in several guns and pulled the triggers so that new impact marks would confuse the evidence. But unique marks survived this attempt. This has got to be the stupidest attempt I ever heard of.

09-17-02, 05:31 AM
Elexina

quote:Originally posted by displacedNYer: I don't understand what the difference is if they base them on urban legends or if they just make them up cold

I agree. Fiction is fiction. Besides, "Law & Order" freely advertises that its stories are 'ripped from today's headlines' and no one complains about the quality of that show.

09-17-02, 08:15 AM
displacedNYer

quote:This has got to be the stupidest attempt I ever heard of.

Oh, I have one stupider! My forensic anthropology professor in college had been a junior examiner for the Dade County FL forensics department.

She told us of a case right after she started training there, where a man who was a barber killed his girlfriend. Without getting into too much detail, he left a significant amount of DNA evidence in her body. He then scattered the area with hair clippings he'd collected from his shop.

Well, he was obviously caught. When asked why he'd left hair clippings all over her, he said it was to confused the detectives with "all that DNA from all them other people on her." Apparently it didn't occur to him about the DNA he'd left!

09-17-02, 03:50 PM
babthrower
Yes, Displaced, that takes the cake! LOL!

(Not to mention, who would have access to tens of thousands of tiny, neatly-clipped hair samples from many different people!)

09-17-02, 05:43 PM
displacedNYer
Exactly!! lol it took the detective maaaayyybbeee a minute to solve that one!

09-22-02, 07:31 PM
BlueJewel06
You didnt give me enough info to make a desicion on.
I would need to know how against/for giving her kidney Amy was and I would need to know if Jane was TELLING or ASKING Amy to do this.

ASSUMING that jane is telling amy to give her the kidney and amy is saying no-
Jane needs to back off a bit, Amy has the right to her own body
Amy needs to seriously consider her priorities.

09-25-02, 11:48 PM
Lucy
I think none of them are selfish. Each one is just looking out for their own interests. Both of their lives are in jeopardy.
Loosing a college opportunity like that is loosing your carrer life. Also, giving up a kidney means loosing your perfect health. It´s not just to give a kidney, it´s dealing with all the health consequences. And Jane cannot demand anything from her "sister".
On the other hand, Jane is desperatly struggling for her life, so you can´t really call it beeing selfish. It´s a pure survival reaction.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,