Synopsis - Dick gets drunk at a party in a hospital and wakes up being a volunteer organ extension to a terminally ill violinist. He's gotta be hooked up for 9 months else the violinist will die. Dick protests but it's too late. Is it his fault or should he kill, essentially murder, the violinist?
Baggini reveals that this story is an analogy to the whole abortion issue. Dick's problem was that he got drunk. Completely self-inflicted and he's completely aware of his crime. But he didn't want to end up being a volunteer and especially not hooked up to another life for 9 months. The doctor tells him that he doesn't have a choice, that his 'partner' would die if he detached himself from him, and Dick needs to be 'locked in' for that time, just as a pregnant woman would be. Just like Dick, there are women who make this living, breathing mistake. Some then choose to wind up the pregnancies through abortion.
Beyond ending a life, the matter of choice for women to do this has been a thorny issue for quite a while. Dick will kill off an individual - a violinist with the ability to communicate, think and express himself if he unplugged himself. A pregnant woman on the other hand would abort a 'thing'? Undeveloped, many pro-choice activists would argue that the foetus isn't quite an individual.
Perhaps, as Baggini has mentioned, it is about taking responsibility. When screwing up means being stuck with a situation, one should 'man up' and admit the crime and do the time. I take the anti-abortion stance. Spending time with my less than one year old nephew has allowed me to experience the joys (and pains) of raising a kid. But a life is something that can be nurtured and moulded to something better than ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
2 comments:
I think the key issue here is not whether you would personally stay connected to the machine but whether the hospital can insist that Dick stays attached. Like you I personal would 'do the right thing' and stay attached so that someone else could live. But could I really condemn someone who picked a different choice? As for the 'thing' part of the debate, imagine that you change it so that the person in the next bed is hidden by a screen. They may be an adult, a child, or a baby, male or female, a great artist or a convicted criminal. Does this change the morality of the question?
How good is the quality of life for the violinist? If he is terminally ill, he will not get better after the 9 months. What is the point of keeping him attached for the 9 months?
What is the violinist's state now? Is he comatose? Able to beg for his own life? Is he enjoying his life as it is this moment? It doesn't matter if he will be happy in the FUTURE, it is important to live for right now.
I am pro-choice. Robbing someone of their quality of life is not the correct moral choice.
Everyone has different experiences with children - they are a choice and should only be raised by those that want them. As a corollary, if Dick has no real connection to this already sick violinist, he should be allowed to kill him.
Post a Comment