Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Here.

Here.

Here is Case 477 from the Hastings Center Report 8 (October 1978): 23-5, at 23:

Mr. R, a twenty-eight-year-old engineer, has been on dialysis for three years, and is growing desperate because of the restrictions it places on his life. He can not work regularly because of the amount of time he has to spend in a dialysis center, and he feels weak and is suffering from many of the debilitating side effects of the treatment.

Mr. R has already investigated the possibility of obtaining a transplant. However, he had been adopted as an infant and does not know his natural family. In addition, tests show that he has a rare tissue type that makes it highly unlikely that a suitable cadaver kidney can be found.

Mr. R's physical and mental state continue to deteriorate and his wife suggests a solution to the transplant surgeon. She will, she says, become pregnant, and after five or six months, have an abortion. The kidneys from the fetus could then be transplanted in her husband.

The surgeon knows that technically such a transplant could be performed, and that the graft would probably not be rejected. He also knows that Mr. R has threatened to commit suicide if he has to remain on dialysis for an indefinite period.

Should he agree to transplant the kidneys of a deliberately conceived and aborted fetus?

What say you? Please support your answer.

To the Editor:

Re “Robot Weapons: What’s the Harm?” (Op-Ed, Aug. 17): Jerry Kaplan argues that smart robotic weapons are likely to have far fewer costs in lives and other resources than conventional weapons, and that we have a duty to secure the greatest safety possible for our troops in battle. Moreover, because of their accuracy, use of robotic weapons would result in far fewer noncombatant casualties.

The assumption made by Mr. Kaplan and most others who write on the morality of war is that war is inevitable, so the safest and most effective weapons are also the most ethical to use.

For a small number of us, however, war is unjust, and none of the arguments even for a defensive war are sound. Thus, any weapons that make war easier to engage in are themselves unethical.

Perhaps wars should cost lives, and perhaps wars should be morally complex and perhaps we should look our “enemies” in the eyes before we attempt to take their lives. Perhaps we should confront the worst in ourselves if we are ever to develop the best in ourselves.

For those reasons, I oppose developing and deploying robotic weapons.

JOHN DOUARD

Montclair, N.J.

Note from KBJ: John Douard is a free rider. Let's remember that when ISIS needs a sacrificial victim.

Here.

Here.

Been there, said that.

Give Us a Wink! (1976). Great guitar work.

To the Editor:

Thank you for noting the cognitive dissonance that finds many Americans lavishing love on tens of millions of dogs and cats, even as we allow the grotesque slaughter of close to nine billion farm animals a year (“Exposing Abuse on the Factory Farm,” editorial, Aug. 9).

There is no moral difference between abusing and eating a pig or a dog, a cat or a chicken. In fact, as your editorial points out, our pets are generally treated well and have legal protections, while farm animals are treated horribly and have virtually no protection from abuse.

So if one’s goal is to cause the least possible cruelty to animals, it would actually be ethically preferable to eat a well-treated dog or cat rather than an abused chicken or pig. The choice for all of us who oppose cruelty is clear: We should not be eating any animals.

BRUCE FRIEDRICH

Washington

The writer is director of policy for Farm Sanctuary, a farm animal protection group that is a plaintiff in the Idaho court case discussed in the editorial.