Question:
This and the following 3 posts are some ethical dilemmas brought on the BBC web site at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4954856.stm

One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines.

To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist.

If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

I'm looking for answers from a Torah point of view.

Choices:
Yes
No

 

Dear Yisrael,

Your four questions are essentially the same. The underlying question is “under what circumstances am I allowed to kill another individual”.

The answer to this is extremely difficult and personally I find it inappropriate for people of our lower stature (non-poskim) to give opinions. Furthermore, it appears to me that the source quoted is an unethical one and I feel we should think twice before quoting them. Perhaps it would be better if you reopen your question asking what sources delve into the topic "Is my blood thicker than yours?"

Of course, this is just my opinion.

quote:

You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him.

In my humble opinion, these are the keys to this puzzle.

Staying in a hospital bed for 9 months is sure to have serious ramifications on one's own physical and emotional health, parnosa, and human relations. I believe the violinist ,MIGHT be considered a "rodef" - someone pursuing the life of another- even though it is for the purpose of saving their own life.
The case could possibly be similar to that of an extremely difficult delivery in which its either the mother or the child- the mother is obligated to save first her own life. Or better yet- being stranded in the desert with a friend and one canteen of water- who drinks it? do you share? give it to him? you are obligated to gaurd your own life first and must drink it.

Being kidnapped would leave numerous friends and family members in a state of panic, confusion, upset and worry- and it may also affect THEIR health. So do i worry about a violinist who is feeding off of my body without my consent and sucking away my life- even if i will be able to recover at a later time? not at all. but if such a situation ever did happen- well, i hope a phone is nearby so i can call for a final halachic decision.

Quote "Staying in a hospital bed for 9 months is sure to have serious ramifications on one's own physical and emotional health, parnosa, and human relations. I believe the violinist ,MIGHT be considered a "rodef" - someone pursuing the life of another- even though it is for the purpose of saving their own life.
The case could possibly be similar to that of an extremely difficult delivery in which its either the mother or the child- the mother is obligated to save first her own life. Or better yet- being stranded in the desert with a friend and one canteen of water- who drinks it"

But in all those cases it's a matter of life and death, while here there is nothing life threatening. (Besides the case of the birth we only save the mother's life before the kid sticks his head out and is officially born,)

quote:

(Besides the case of the birth we only save the mother's life before the kid sticks his head out and is officially born,)

So with a breach birth what is the rule?

Is there any case of siamese twins in which a head can come out but no viable way to finish a delivery without at least one of the baby who's head is out or its mother dying in which we know ahead of time what to do?