Q&A: Saving oneself with another person’s body
Saving oneself with another person’s body
Question
Here you wrote that if your kidneys were connected to another person so that he could continue living, even if they did this without your knowledge, disconnecting would be an act of wickedness. You compared it to the topic of saving oneself with another person’s property according to Rashi’s view. But is there not room to distinguish between saving oneself with another person’s property and saving oneself with another person’s body? In your opinion, is every healthy person obligated to donate a kidney, and in principle should this be coerced?
Answer
There is no obligation, and certainly it cannot be coerced. But that is not similar to a situation where my organ has already been connected and I want to disconnect it. These are completely different cases.
According to Rashi, there is no distinction between saving oneself through another person’s property and saving oneself through another person’s life.
Discussion on Answer
“Completely different cases” (disconnecting what is mine after it has been connected, versus connecting what is mine) — that’s exaggerated language, right?
It is forbidden to amputate an organ from a living person in order to save another person.
The donor’s consent changes nothing whatsoever. This is a forbidden act.
I meant that there is no difference regarding the prohibition against harming life or property in order to save oneself.
Why is it obvious to you that according to Rashi there is no distinction between saving oneself through another person’s property and saving oneself through another person’s body? The fact that I’m obligated to give my property does not necessarily mean that I’m obligated to give (or keep giving) my body.