🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:26 🔍 McFaul v Shimp is a famous court case from 1978 in Pennsylvania. 01:06 💊 McFaul has a rare bone marrow disease and needs a transplant from Shemp, his cousin. 02:17 📜 McFaul's lawyers request a preliminary injunction to force Shemp to donate bone marrow. 04:50 ⚖️ The court denies the request, refusing to force Shemp to undergo the procedure. 05:16 🧠 The judge, Flaherty, criticizes Shemp's refusal as "morally indefensible." 07:54 📜 There's no straightforward conflict between morality and legality in this case. 12:04 🤝 Shemp has a moral duty to donate bone marrow, while McFaul has a moral right to receive it. 15:46 🤔 Legal positivism doesn't necessarily exclude the consideration of moral arguments in law. 18:02 📜 Legal positivism doesn't imply that law is purely separate from morality, and moral concepts can sometimes be relevant to legal matters. Made with HARPA AI
So I'm just some lowly high school grad proletariat here after googling "McFall v Shimp" because I saw someone referencing it in an argument about abortion. So basically the precedent from this case would also imply that making abortion illegal or forcing someone to have a child is wrong?
No, it basically says that morality and law are not necessarily related. If you have strong moral argument pro abortion and only mild moral inconvenience arguments against abortion then you could consider this case relevant or vice versa. All depends on circumstances.
Late reply but yes, the pro-choice side of the abortion argument claims that because the law cannot mandate bodily donation (as exemplified by this case) the law also cannot mandate the mother to donate her body to her unborn child. Thus abortion should be allowed. The rebuttal is that the two scenarios (McFall and abortion) are not analogous, for several relevant reasons, the largest being that with pregnancy there is no neutral/passive option to simply not donate, as Shimp chose to do. The only possible way to stop donating to the unborn child is a procedure that requires killing a healthy child. The pro-choice side might reply that that's true for many abortions, but conceptually there's a type of abortion that is more like a pure ejection of the unborn. The pro-life response to THAT is that even a pure ejection would still be considered killing, much like ejecting someone from a space ship into the inhospitability of space.
@@zachwilliams784 "The only possible way to stop donating to the unborn child is a procedure that requires killing a healthy child." The pro-choice side would probably point out that the ZEF is neither healthy in the normal sense - it is literally on 100% full-time life support - nor a child in any normal sense. Consequently, just as in many cases removing even merely mechanical life support from actual people, from citizens, is not considered to be killing them, it's incorrect to view abortion as killing the ZEF; conceptually at least, as you note, it's merely removing life support... and not just life support, but the very bodily autonomy, health and liberty of the mother. The comparison with ejecting someone into space is obviously flawed for many reasons (eg. 1 it involves breaking prior agreements/explicit or implied contractual obligations; 2 consent is meaningfully violated unlike for a ZEF or persistent vegetative state; and 3 no-one's bodily autonomy or other rights are compromised by the astronaut remaining on board). If we imagine a scenario in which even two of those differences are not the case - for example an unauthorized stowaway (1) is discovered whose presence jeopardizes the lives of others (3) - the decision to stop providing life support might still be controversial, but obviously much less so.
@@zachwilliams784 sorry for the late reply also haha, the pro-bodily autonomy side would rebut that guidelines from the organizations managing bone marrow and other such donations empathize a right to withdraw at any point and the need to explain the (possibly fatal) consequences to the patient. Note also that the donation process is infinitely easier and safer than a pregnancy. If you believe that the legal framework should be changed to force people to provide their bodily resources to those who need them I suggest you start from bone marrow donation. There are cases like that, and even involving the initial consent. In bone marrow donations the recipient has first to get therapy killing their existing bone marrow cells. Once it is complete they have pretty much no immunity whatsoever, are in really vulnerable state and can easily die, much earlier than their condition would have killed them if that process hasn't started (so they might also miss a chance to find another donor). Your know what happens if the donor refuses to donate at that stage? The care team is supposed to talk to them to make sure they understand their refusal is likely to cause the patient's death. That's it. No other consequences and no way to force them to go through with the donation.
@@Veronica24296 I'm not really sure how that responds to my rebuttal, which was mainly about how there's no way to merely let your fetus die, like would be the case for someone who outright refuses to donate their bone marrow (as an example).
I think that the McFall vs. Shimp case was decided correctly. I happen to think that Judge Flaherty's ruling was both sound legally and compelling morally, and that there is NO contradiction between the two. Consider the following: A needs a kidney transplant and Z, a complete stranger, has a perfect matching kidney. Time is short, there's no time search for other donors, so A sues Z for he same cause of action that McFall sued Shimp. Yes, it's "only" an "inconvenience" to Z to be forced to "donate" one of his two kidneys, while A is more likely than not to get a new lease on life. Clearly, there's is no legal obligation on Z's part to part with one of his vital organs to save A's life. Would the law be better served if A could show that he had done nothing wrong to bring about his misery? I think not: It's irrelevant to Z. Conversely if A had cirrhosis of the liver, due to alcoholism, and Z was capable of parting with half of his liver; should Z prevail if he could demonstrate that A was at fault for damaging his liver. Once again: No, it's irrelevant. The kidney or the liver is Z's and his alone, regardless of of A's imminent death, morality, need, lack of other resources etc. Z need only say, No, and the case is over, even though all of us would choose to call his a cruel villain. In a simpler, but ultimately identical case to McFall vs. Shimp, M has 4 cars, all drivable, in his garage. His and his wife's cars are used daily, but the others are driven occasionally for fun. He got these cars from his parents before they died. Everyone in this impoverished neighborhood suburb has one car. T's car has been wrecked and he cannot afford a rental, and might lose his job in a neighboring city if he doesn't show up. Finally, bus service is unreliable. T asks M to borrow one of his reserve cars, M says "No." can T sue M, just as McFall did? He can, but he too should lose. While I personally find M's refusal inhumane and abhorrent, T still does not present a legal claim, despite M's moral blindness. Great presentation, Jeffrey Kaplan.
The distinction is clear. However, I don't think that bone marrow donation is as light a burden as it's made out to be, nor that the patient's prognosis (assuming they get the donation) is as good as it's made to sound, at least in most cases where bone marrow transplant is indicated, especially given the state of the art in medicine as of the 1970s.
This example does not really illustrate separation between law and morals. The way I see it is this: McFall has a request for Shimp that is not legal in nature and has nothing to do with the law. Therefore, the courts should have rejected the demand for a court case. The one who acted immorally was the one who accepted this request as a court case, giving false hope to McFall and potentially causing financial loss as well. Imagine I madly fall in love with someone and decide to commit suicide if rejected. I am rejected and I go before the courts asking for an injunction that will force my beloved to offer me a one night stand (I make this request). I argue that one night stand is less painful than me killing myself. According to McFall vs. Shimp logic, a court should accept my request, take my money and give me a sermon.
Can we approach this whoke morality thing from a rusk/calculation perspective? Let's say you don't need morality, that doesn't mean others agree ir are convinced by it. So from a power construction, if you don't want to be overly deadly aggressive (comes with risks) you better make morality a part if your narrative. Also, growing up with morality is difficult to avoid. Same for Christian concept. For a Christian nation it is difficult to avoid eveyrhing even if you're an atheist. On the part of communities where the community is more important then the individual; from again a psychological stand point, you can ask 'who voices this?' Where is the angst and where is the unhealthy relationship between the community and individual. It is as if internalization and risk oppresses the individual by it most anxious members. A hit you, because I might be hit instead of you by someone I might not know. Thank you again for the really interesting lecture.
This sounds like it relates to game theory such as prisoner’s dilemma. Definitely a problem with fraud as it would be an “either-or fallacy “ and false dilemma
He just didn't want and even is not the right thing to do he has the right to decide what he wants to do with his body. You can watch this video ruclips.net/video/Br59pD583Io/видео.html explain the idea
General Anesthetic is the only way to donate. Trust me. Having bone marrow aspirated from you while conscious is like having a railroad spike jammed into your hip bone. It hurts now even 39 years since having the procedure. You don’t just pop up from the table going wow that’s fine and dandy. I had only minimal amounts taken for testing. I would imagine it’s a bigger amount to donate. And there is probably recovery for that. So risk of death from GA and pain from the procedure maybe enough to dissuade someone from doing it.
I read in an article that aside from the possibility of medical complications Shimp was concerned about chemical exposure from his job and that his bone marrow might not regenerate.
So, Flaherty's ruling may impact any requirement or mandate for employer and/or government forced vaccination? If feminists cite Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut for "bodily autonomy" from the State--then that goes triple for forced vaccination.
@@rubies200 No. Because coercive sex is sexual assault. Which is a crime. Now, if your employer said "get the shot or you lose your job" then that is fine. You don't legally have to get the shot but they are allowed to fire you if you don't get it. Freedom of choice is not freedom from consequences.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:26 🔍 McFaul v Shimp is a famous court case from 1978 in Pennsylvania.
01:06 💊 McFaul has a rare bone marrow disease and needs a transplant from Shemp, his cousin.
02:17 📜 McFaul's lawyers request a preliminary injunction to force Shemp to donate bone marrow.
04:50 ⚖️ The court denies the request, refusing to force Shemp to undergo the procedure.
05:16 🧠 The judge, Flaherty, criticizes Shemp's refusal as "morally indefensible."
07:54 📜 There's no straightforward conflict between morality and legality in this case.
12:04 🤝 Shemp has a moral duty to donate bone marrow, while McFaul has a moral right to receive it.
15:46 🤔 Legal positivism doesn't necessarily exclude the consideration of moral arguments in law.
18:02 📜 Legal positivism doesn't imply that law is purely separate from morality, and moral concepts can sometimes be relevant to legal matters.
Made with HARPA AI
❤
So I'm just some lowly high school grad proletariat here after googling "McFall v Shimp" because I saw someone referencing it in an argument about abortion.
So basically the precedent from this case would also imply that making abortion illegal or forcing someone to have a child is wrong?
No, it basically says that morality and law are not necessarily related. If you have strong moral argument pro abortion and only mild moral inconvenience arguments against abortion then you could consider this case relevant or vice versa. All depends on circumstances.
Late reply but yes, the pro-choice side of the abortion argument claims that because the law cannot mandate bodily donation (as exemplified by this case) the law also cannot mandate the mother to donate her body to her unborn child. Thus abortion should be allowed.
The rebuttal is that the two scenarios (McFall and abortion) are not analogous, for several relevant reasons, the largest being that with pregnancy there is no neutral/passive option to simply not donate, as Shimp chose to do. The only possible way to stop donating to the unborn child is a procedure that requires killing a healthy child.
The pro-choice side might reply that that's true for many abortions, but conceptually there's a type of abortion that is more like a pure ejection of the unborn. The pro-life response to THAT is that even a pure ejection would still be considered killing, much like ejecting someone from a space ship into the inhospitability of space.
@@zachwilliams784 "The only possible way to stop donating to the unborn child is a procedure that requires killing a healthy child." The pro-choice side would probably point out that the ZEF is neither healthy in the normal sense - it is literally on 100% full-time life support - nor a child in any normal sense. Consequently, just as in many cases removing even merely mechanical life support from actual people, from citizens, is not considered to be killing them, it's incorrect to view abortion as killing the ZEF; conceptually at least, as you note, it's merely removing life support... and not just life support, but the very bodily autonomy, health and liberty of the mother.
The comparison with ejecting someone into space is obviously flawed for many reasons (eg. 1 it involves breaking prior agreements/explicit or implied contractual obligations; 2 consent is meaningfully violated unlike for a ZEF or persistent vegetative state; and 3 no-one's bodily autonomy or other rights are compromised by the astronaut remaining on board). If we imagine a scenario in which even two of those differences are not the case - for example an unauthorized stowaway (1) is discovered whose presence jeopardizes the lives of others (3) - the decision to stop providing life support might still be controversial, but obviously much less so.
@@zachwilliams784 sorry for the late reply also haha, the pro-bodily autonomy side would rebut that
guidelines from the organizations managing bone marrow and other such donations empathize a right to withdraw at any point and the need to explain the (possibly fatal) consequences to the patient.
Note also that the donation process is infinitely easier and safer than a pregnancy.
If you believe that the legal framework should be changed to force people to provide their bodily resources to those who need them I suggest you start from bone marrow donation.
There are cases like that, and even involving the initial consent. In bone marrow donations the recipient has first to get therapy killing their existing bone marrow cells. Once it is complete they have pretty much no immunity whatsoever, are in really vulnerable state and can easily die, much earlier than their condition would have killed them if that process hasn't started (so they might also miss a chance to find another donor). Your know what happens if the donor refuses to donate at that stage? The care team is supposed to talk to them to make sure they understand their refusal is likely to cause the patient's death. That's it. No other consequences and no way to force them to go through with the donation.
@@Veronica24296 I'm not really sure how that responds to my rebuttal, which was mainly about how there's no way to merely let your fetus die, like would be the case for someone who outright refuses to donate their bone marrow (as an example).
I think that the McFall vs. Shimp case was decided correctly. I happen to think that Judge Flaherty's
ruling was both sound legally and compelling morally, and that there is NO contradiction between the two. Consider the following: A needs a kidney transplant and Z, a complete stranger, has a perfect matching kidney. Time is short, there's no time search for other donors, so A sues Z for he same cause of action that McFall sued Shimp. Yes, it's "only" an "inconvenience" to Z to be forced to "donate" one of his two kidneys, while A is more likely than not to get a new lease on life. Clearly, there's is no legal obligation on Z's part to part with one of his vital organs to save A's life. Would the law be better served if A could show that he had done nothing wrong to bring about his misery? I think not: It's irrelevant to Z.
Conversely if A had cirrhosis of the liver, due to alcoholism, and Z was capable of parting with half of his liver; should Z prevail if he could demonstrate that A was at fault for damaging his liver. Once again: No, it's irrelevant. The kidney or the liver is Z's and his alone, regardless of of A's imminent death, morality, need, lack of other resources etc. Z need only say, No, and the case is over, even though all of us would choose to call his a cruel villain.
In a simpler, but ultimately identical case to McFall vs. Shimp, M has 4 cars, all drivable, in his garage. His and his wife's cars are used daily, but the others are driven occasionally for fun. He got these cars from his parents before they died. Everyone in this impoverished neighborhood suburb has one car. T's car has been wrecked and he cannot afford a rental, and might lose his job in a neighboring city if he doesn't show up. Finally, bus service is unreliable. T asks M to borrow one of his reserve cars, M says "No." can T sue M, just as McFall did? He can, but he too should lose. While I personally find M's refusal inhumane and abhorrent, T still does not present a legal claim, despite M's moral blindness.
Great presentation, Jeffrey Kaplan.
The distinction is clear. However, I don't think that bone marrow donation is as light a burden as it's made out to be, nor that the patient's prognosis (assuming they get the donation) is as good as it's made to sound, at least in most cases where bone marrow transplant is indicated, especially given the state of the art in medicine as of the 1970s.
This example does not really illustrate separation between law and morals. The way I see it is this: McFall has a request for Shimp that is not legal in nature and has nothing to do with the law. Therefore, the courts should have rejected the demand for a court case. The one who acted immorally was the one who accepted this request as a court case, giving false hope to McFall and potentially causing financial loss as well. Imagine I madly fall in love with someone and decide to commit suicide if rejected. I am rejected and I go before the courts asking for an injunction that will force my beloved to offer me a one night stand (I make this request). I argue that one night stand is less painful than me killing myself. According to McFall vs. Shimp logic, a court should accept my request, take my money and give me a sermon.
Can we approach this whoke morality thing from a rusk/calculation perspective? Let's say you don't need morality, that doesn't mean others agree ir are convinced by it. So from a power construction, if you don't want to be overly deadly aggressive (comes with risks) you better make morality a part if your narrative. Also, growing up with morality is difficult to avoid. Same for Christian concept. For a Christian nation it is difficult to avoid eveyrhing even if you're an atheist.
On the part of communities where the community is more important then the individual; from again a psychological stand point, you can ask 'who voices this?' Where is the angst and where is the unhealthy relationship between the community and individual. It is as if internalization and risk oppresses the individual by it most anxious members. A hit you, because I might be hit instead of you by someone I might not know.
Thank you again for the really interesting lecture.
This sounds like it relates to game theory such as prisoner’s dilemma. Definitely a problem with fraud as it would be an “either-or fallacy “ and false dilemma
We need an addendum post Dobbs.
Press F for McFall
It's not mcfall vee Shimp but Ncfall versus Shimp get your citation correct. It hurts the ears!
Why didn't Shimp want to give McFall his bone marrow?
He just didn't want and even is not the right thing to do he has the right to decide what he wants to do with his body. You can watch this video ruclips.net/video/Br59pD583Io/видео.html explain the idea
General Anesthetic is the only way to donate. Trust me. Having bone marrow aspirated from you while conscious is like having a railroad spike jammed into your hip bone. It hurts now even 39 years since having the procedure. You don’t just pop up from the table going wow that’s fine and dandy. I had only minimal amounts taken for testing. I would imagine it’s a bigger amount to donate. And there is probably recovery for that. So risk of death from GA and pain from the procedure maybe enough to dissuade someone from doing it.
I read in an article that aside from the possibility of medical complications Shimp was concerned about chemical exposure from his job and that his bone marrow might not regenerate.
Enslaved person>slave.
So, Flaherty's ruling may impact any requirement or mandate for employer and/or government forced vaccination? If feminists cite Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut for "bodily autonomy" from the State--then that goes triple for forced vaccination.
Freedom to refuse something doesn’t negate the consequences. You’re free to refuse the vaccine but your employer may still let you go 🤷🏻♀️
@@spacemonkey340 So if my employer demanded I sleep with him, you would support him letting me go if I refused?🤔
@@rubies200 That is a ridiculous response and you damn well know it.
@@spacemonkey340 Why? Because you don't like the implications?
@@rubies200 No. Because coercive sex is sexual assault. Which is a crime. Now, if your employer said "get the shot or you lose your job" then that is fine. You don't legally have to get the shot but they are allowed to fire you if you don't get it. Freedom of choice is not freedom from consequences.