This case is based on McFall v. Shimp , 10 Pa. D. & C.3d 90 (1978). Statements from the Court's decision are in quotation marks. An edited version of the case is available here.

"Plaintiff, Robert McFall, suffers from a rare bone marrow disease and the prognosis for his survival is very dim, unless he receives a bone marrow transplant from a compatible donor. Finding a compatible donor is a very difficult task and limited to a selection among close relatives. After a search and certain tests, it has been determined that only defendant is suitable as a donor. Defendant refuses to submit to the necessary transplant, and before the court is a request for a preliminary injunction which seeks to compel defendant to submit to further tests, and, eventually, the bone marrow transplant."

This case is about forcing a person to donate in order to save the life of another. A guiding principle in ethics - one that has a good deal of support among many ethicists but is rejected by others - is that people do not have a moral obligation to help others who are in need unless doing so is of little personal cost or unless a person has a social role, such as a health-care professional or firefighter, that entails helping others.   In McFall, the defendant is not in a special role, except perhaps as a relative.

 1

Value: 1
Does the defendant have a moral obligation to donate?
 
 
 

 2

Value: 1
The Court did not order the defendant to donate. It concluded "For our law to compel defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change every concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual, and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn."

Suppose there is a moral obligation to help in this case. Would that impose a moral rule that, in the words of the judges, "would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn."

 
 
 


return to top

 

 

 

 

 

Click to close