RE tzedakah, I think the lowest rung is those who don't give at all (or offer empty words instead, "thoughts and prayers!" "blessings"), not those who give unwillingly. Those who give reluctantly are still acknowledging it's the right thing to do even though they don't like it.
3
I lost a friend who expected me to offer a donation. He had a brother and a mother. I had two kids a mother and a sister.
I had heard that he wanted me to offer. I was honest with him. I explained why I had to make sure I had a kidney to give for my family.
I would suggest not saying anything.
1
My relative seemed comforted and encouraged that I tried to donate a kidney - there is a program where, even though the kidney isn't a match, the donation would have helped my relative move up on the waiting list. I was relieved that I was not able to donate, but I would have gone through with it, had I been eligible. It kills me that their child will lose a parent, if there is no transplant.
Some healthier family members have opted out of trying because they don't want to, are afraid of the future consequences, or have small children and don't want to take the risk. I don't fault them; it's a very personal choice.
My relative seems to want to know all of this, and I think it helps him 1) to know people care and are thinking about it, and 2) to use as info to help keep his social media campaign alive. I'm just crossing my fingers that things work out.
3
"Can You Tell a Friend You Wanted to Give Her a Kidney but Couldn’t?" I had a kidney transplant 25 years ago. Dialysis is hard and waiting is hard. Knowing that people who care for me were being tested meant the world to me, even if they found out (as most did) that they were not a match or could not for medical reasons. I have so much gratitude for the life saving gift from my kidney donor and also for others who were willing to be tested. I would suggest sharing a simple "I got tested, but unfortunately cannot donate. How else can I help you."
38
To LW1, if this were a stranger, it would make more sense to keep it to yourself. But this is a friend, so go ahead and tell her you wanted to help, went for testing, and were turned down as a donor. Most potential donors are turned down because the requirements are so stringent, despite what some people posting here seem to think.
Don't stop at "I'm not a qualified donor." Help your friend find a donor. Publicize the need, offer to any potential donors succinct and accurate information on how to undergo testing. It can be a one-page web site, a business card, printed flyer in local shops and public spaces. (Where is she registered? Who to contact there? How to specify that the donor applicant wants to help her specifically?) The effort to see her through the crisis & find her way back to health will be just as loving as your attempt to be her donor. In the end it might be part of the story of how she gets healthy.
10
Whenever I read these columns, I hear the voice of the character Chidi in The Good Place. It's a funny trick of the mind, too, because then I ascribe good intentions on Mr. Appiah even when I disagree with his advice (such as in LW3's dilemma, when I'm less certain the company has "mended its ways"). It makes disagreement a much more low-stakes endeavor.
4
LW1, On the assumption that you actually received a medical opinion indicating that you are not a good candidate (not 100% clear from the letter), I say definitely tell your friend, as she will be comforted that you were willing to do this.
I find it odd that so many commenters are challenging whether pre-diabetes is a disqualifier. Maybe they think LW1 did not receive an actual medical opinion, but was making assumptions?
12
Resale Store-as long as the well-heeled clients pay the going price, there should be no issue, as their money is going toward helping to build homes. When the well-heeled are getting an extra break, that's discrimination in favor of the wealthy and it should be stopped. Otherwise, it comes out to, "We'd love to help you, but you're poor, so you have to pay full price and do with less." Sometimes the decorators return furniture as a donation after using it to help sell a home. If that be the case, the the organization needs to create a leasing or rental situation so everyone is treated equally on the sales side.
20
About continuing to do business with that sleazebag company: The Ethicist wrote, "Let me suggest, though, that a business, although it certainly has practices, doesn’t really have a moral character." I disagree with this belief, and I think corporations promote it to exempt themselves from normal human moral (not to mention legal) responsibilities. But as Mitt Romney, no friend to corporate morality, said in a moment of accidental candor during a presidential debate, "Corporations are people, my friend." The letter-writer can find out (and I think has a moral obligation to do so) about the governance, policies, legal history and management of the companies he or she does business with. There are dozens of NGOs and socially-responsible or activist investment companies that research and release that kind of information. Some of it is partisan or greenwashing, but plenty of it answers the simple question of whether the company in question follows the golden rule. (And let me just add, if we as citizens want better information about the companies we do business with, we really need a law that bans gag orders imposed on plaintiffs, even those who lose a case.)
8
@Dan as long as “corporations are people too” and money equals free speech you bet I hold corporations responsible!
3
Professor Appiah,
Please don't say "chintzy." It is a slur.
@PrairieFlax
It's an adjective but is it some sort of racist slur? The word comes refers to an inexpensive floral fabric called chintz that used to be imported from India and now often is used to mean cheap.
37
@PrairieFlax - it is not a slur. It comes from the word "chintz," a type of calico fabric. It eventually came to be seen as cheap and tasteless.
1
good news for the woman in her 50s who looked into donating a kidney to a friend: according to modern American medical science, practically everyone in your cohort has high cholesterol and is pre-diabetic. luckily, there is a solution. move to France and don't get too worried about it.
5
Regarding the printed version of The Ethicist in the NYT Magazine: I noticed Dr. Appiah referencing the 12th century Jewish scholar Maimonides twice and found this interesting; I was curious about Dr. Appiah’s process, curious if he had been recently studying this scholar, etc. But then I noticed the half page ad on the second page of the column for “Maimonides Prostate Center” and felt confused and disconcerted. I’m wondering about the process for ad selection and writing the column. Was the referencing of Maimonides catering to ad selection? Or was ad space sold based on Dr. Appiah’s having referenced Maimonides? And, what are the ethical considerations embedded in this?
11
@Aleve Douglas - I suspect that the advertiser - or its agency/middleman - spends some time cruising the internets looking for a good place to advertise. I doubt that the Times or Dr Appiah had any foreknowledge or influence in the matter.
2
@Aleve Douglas @NYTimes
Thank you, I am also concerned about this.
1
Is letter writer number one saying that her high cholesterol and her pre-diabetic condition cannot be corrected. When I have those usually I can correct them both by diet within a year. Could she not try to do this and be a kidney donor in a while.
@Richard I was able to correct my high cholesterol within three months by changing my diet. It takes commitment .
Some individuals, myself included, are genetically predisposed to high cholesterol and diabetes. While diet and exercise certainly does help, it alone does not guarantee success. I have been on a statin since I was a teenager and it took until my early 20s to get my cholesterol into the normal range.
@Richard she does say she is trying to correct the problem
NW 1 - whatever else you do or have done in life, your frustrated effort to donate a kidney to your friend, and subsequent struggle over whether telling her would be viewed as self-glorification, identifies you as a good person. Self-sacrifice, generosity, loyalty, care and humility. In these Trumpian times of declining decency, I’m encouraged just reading about it.
18
To the lady who wished to donate a kidney tp her friend, you are an angel in disguise. Please tell your friend that you did go through the process because patients on dialysis have a difficult time waiting while going through dialysis every three days. I know from personal experience. I had a transplant 28 years ago and was very lucky to only wait 15 months. My daughter who was 24 when she was found to have 4% kidney function, was on dialysis for 5 years. By the time she was gifted with a new life, she was very, very weak and close to death. But an angel gave her a kidney and today she is studying to be an RN. while it didn't work out, you cared enough to try. That is a gift from an angel in my book.
32
The company paid their debt to society in a financial way, so to speak, but why patronize a business with a history of misogyny, harassment and discrimination?
The boycott is a powerful way for society to punish companies who treat employees terribly, or have other antisocial practices.
Individual people harass and discriminate. And if those people were not fired at that company, it is safe to assume that the culture and collective moral character of that workplace is exactly the same.
13
@She-persisted Wasn't the punishment the fine? Do we not believe in redemption? (If not, then let's not impose fines. Let your boycott be the punishment.) Do we demand that the wrong-doer pay for misdeeds forever? We do love to punish, don't we? If the practices now conform to sanction behavior, why continue with the ire? Its safe to assume you are indulging in self-righteous anger.
7
@Roger your assumption is wrong. The only people who tend to demand redemption are men.
Nothing changes until men lose money. That is why fines and boycotts are effective tools.
It is safe to assume that you fear a long punishment for your misdeeds.
4
@She-persisted Only men? Don't women also apply for parole? And demand? No one is demanding the LW do business with the company. His choice. But I'm not sure there is moral high-ground in either position. Judeo-Christian culture asks for, and even promises redemption, for the contrite. I don't know that it 'safe to assume' they aren't contrite. I don't know which of my misdeeds you are referring to - but I'm guessing everyone fears long punishment for misdeeds, even you. We eventually let people who committed crimes out of prison, because we believe in redemption, right?
4
I find it a major (and unfounded) assumption on your part in Question # 3 that you leap from “they have settled a lawsuit and paid a fine” to “a company that seems to have mended its ways.”
A lawsuit generally deals with specific behavior with specific individuals, and the settlement of it in no means indicates that future such behavior will not occur, it only atones for the past behavior with the employees in the suit. Discrimination can occur in many realms: hiring, promoting, salaries, supplier relationships, customer discounts.
Your advice that “they’re no longer discriminating” so keep doing business with them, is at best, naive.
28
Let your friend know what you were willing to do for her and that you went through all the tests. She will be touched and know that you truly love her. That's so very precious!
27
LW 1 - the strangest letter ever. Layers of self-absorption. Do a good deed, or not. Let someone know about the decision, and how the decision was reached, or not. It may be healthy for you to know your motives, but since you were never required to jeopardize your own health for someone else, the ethics end there.
10
I had to laugh to myself about the ethicists comment in the last ethical dilemma that "a business...doesn't really have a moral character" - curious that SCOTUS determined more or less that "corporations are people" in Citizens United.
32
a corporation is, in some sense, a legal person, as distinct from a natural person. the Supremes decided a fictional person has legal rights, and may go further, extending those rights to the moment of conception, which for a corporation is when some shysters concluded that a legal person could get away with shennanigans that a natural person would be arrested for, such as claiming, for tax purposes, to live in Ireland when they just built a big new home in Cupertino. so far, the legal trend is for those who cannot die and against those who will. now that's an ethics question.
3
You have in two cases referred to the opinions regarding charitable acts of the 12th century Jewish scholar Maimonides, for whom I have considerable respect.
Consider also the opinions of the 1st century Jewish scholar Jesus, who was repeatedly even more emphatic on this issue. In his Sermon on the Mount, for example, he said:
"Beware of practicing your good works in front of other people in order to be seen by them, because then you will have no reward from your Father Who is in Heaven."
"Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly I say to you, they already have their reward."
"When you give alms to the poor or do other acts of kindness, let not your left hand know what your right hand is doing."
11
@Marvant Duhon That advice refers to PUBLIC good deeds, not a good deed done for a dear friend, it is a different situation. Please consider that knowing her friend would have donated a kidney if she could have, would likely be a real comfort to the friend who needs a kidney.
14
@Marvant Duhon
The levels of giving spoken of by Maimonides had the aim of emphasizing how being responsible for the welfare of others in trouble must be something we feel in our souls. It's an extension of his principle that as we wish to be treated, so we should treat others. The idea of caring about those less fortunate with hand and heart remains a fundamental principle of modern Judaism. Now, as someone with a terminal form of cancer, what matters to me is knowing that I'm valued by friends and family. The plan, and the regret this person shows at not being able to go ahead with it, will translate directly into love.
9
If letter writer #1 sincerely wants to help her friend, she needs to consider improving her health--rapidly--and then donating. (Assuming she's a viable candidate otherwise). I'm a healthcare provider who recently intentionally lost 10 lbs to control my blood pressure in lieu of taking hypertension medication. (This brought my BP down about 30 pts systolic, way more than I would have expected.)
Weight loss is very doable if you are dedicated and willing to cook. I recommend a low carb regime, such as diet doctor.com. Or look up a book by Dr Jason Fung. (No financial connections to me.) Weight loss generally will improve or cure pre-diabetes and high cholesterol.
If you want to live long--and well--treasure your friendships. Donating that kidney might improve your health more than any cholesterol pill.
PS. another commenter here mentioned chains of donations, so that many people get the appropriate organ. If you decide to donate, but don't work for her, you could still get her that kidney.
One further thought: I had a medical colleague whose parent was on dialysis. He/she (not saying) begged my friend to allow him/her to come off dialysis and suicide. (And died a few weeks later.) It's that awful.
6
@PNRN LW1 didn't mention overweight. People of any weight can be pre-diabetic and have high cholesterol.
8
@Rita Prangle
True, but for pre-diabetes, it's less than common.
1
Re: The kidney donor. The end "game" is to acquire self worth; to feel good. The extreme of taking life for self satisfaction to the polar opposite of sacrificing one's life for a perceived greater good. Yes, anonymous giving / taking would seem to negate seeking approval. But, self approval, in the end, is sought, tempered by fulfilling a religious/philosophical concept.
My thoughts on #1 are that this is not really an ethical question. It's not wrong or right to tell her. Only the LW can tell, looking deep within, if her motives for telling are for her friend's sake or her own. Either way, the action is probably not going to hurt her friend, and her friend would probably welcome the news - unless the LW feels, knowing her friend, that she would feel burdened with gratitude.
I do agree it would have made more sense to tell her before undergoing the testing. OTOH, if the LW actually feels secretly relieved that now she has a legitimate reason not to donate, there's really no shame in that either, though perhaps it would tip the balance toward "Don't tell."
She obviously was at least willing to consider the idea, and did the testing out of a wish to help her friend; she doesn't deserve to be shamed now for how things worked out, either way, or for having confused feelings about the whole thing. Nobody really wants to undergo invasive surgery.
6
@DW
She did more than "consider" the idea. She started the process and then found she was UNABLE to do it. If I were her friend,, I would feel so loved and comforted to know she cared so deeply.
18
I hope the would-be kidney donor shared her test result information with the recipient's transplant team for evaluation and didn't just count herself out without that input! IF she's sincere about actually wanting to donate a kidney, that is. (Which she may not be.) It's possible that getting the cholesterol and prediabetes conditions under control through treatment might qualify her to donate after all. Especially in an older patient who won't need it for as long a time span as a younger person would.
17
@dg
If the friend went through all that, she most likely was sincere. Why do YOU even raise the question?
16
@Daisy22
Agreed. Questioning the motives of a would-be donor is just weird. She was plainly planning to donate if the testing indicated she was a good match; I have no idea why some seem to think a person would go through all that if they didn't intend to donate. It's like people see some bit of ambivalence there and pounce on it to vilify the would-be donor. But ambivalence over major surgery is normal.
(In fact, if someone waltzed in saying sure, take my kidney, I have no qualms about that, they should probably be sure that person undergoes some serious psychological testing, because THAT would be abnormal.)
5
Two thoughts: potential organ donors are always interviewed by a psychologist or social worker to determine that they are mentally healthy, and most people who are pre-diabetic are rejected as donors. Donors must be in excellent health; often unknown issues are discovered in the extensive physical testing that is done.
Ok, a third thought: tell your friend you tried. It will mean a great deal to her.
5
Regarding the potential kidney donation. Yes, tell her. I donated a kidney 8/16 (nondirected, start of a small chain). When people are in need of a kidney, most find it hard if not impossible to directly ask someone. Most hope-usually in private thoughts that maybe somebody they know will donate. Or at least try. I bet it would mean alot to her. Most who do step up to the plate and undergo the testing process (or start it) are turned down as donors (I think of those who actually start the testing process, only about 1 in 4 is accepted as donor) Yes, pre-diabetes and high cholesterol will disqualify someone. Anyone who has "something" that could negatively affect their kidney health in the future is turned down. Maybe if health and lifestyle had been managed differently, those test results would have been different. maybe not. And maybe other tests down the line would be a "disqualifier". You can be perfectly healthy but have a "kidney quirk" that would cause you to be turned down. I went thru more tests than I ever knew existed and tests that were incredibly detailed regarding kidney function of both kidneys-and they had to be each functioning in a certain proportional range as well. Don't go blaming yourself for being turned down. Far too few even step up to the plate. No need to be silent. Be proud and talk about it. I commend you.
46
About the store that builds homes for qualifying families. I live overseas, but when I go home, I make a stop or two to stores like the one in the article. The customers are not only minorities, recent immigrants, or better-heeled people looking to further discount the prices. I don't need to shop there but I do, purposely for two main reasons: I know my dollars are going toward a good cause, and there are always vintage items, and unique pieces that one can't find anywhere else. I wish these stores existed overseas! They are a great model.
29
@s wallace
They might have something where you live overseas. Ask around. I know that England has a program where if you donate books, they sell them and give the money to Amnesty International. It's run be volunteers.
1
There seem to be two related omissions in your analyses.
In case #1, wouldn't directing the woman to focus on what she can do for her friend now be the best course of action. If one wants their friend to know they care a great deal, show you care a great deal through your actions and interactions with the friend. For instance, instead of writing a letter to the ethicist, one could write a letter to the friend reflecting upon their qualities. Instead of engaging the health care industry to determine how to donate a kidney, see if you can help to manage the friends many health care-related logistics.
For #3 The man could simply convey in writing to the company that he will not provide services to a company that discriminates, that he is troubled by their track record and is glad they are remediating their practices. This approach has the benefit of conveying his position and so discharge (part of) what he feels is his ethical duty while also potentially having some impact on the organization. Much better than simply discontinuing one's association without the organization knowing why and thus losing the opportunity to use leverage to make ethical change. If he's willing to give up the business, then risking it should be of little consequence.
In the first instance, the sole focus of advice is on messaging about a past action to the exclusion of present and future action, and in the second it is solely on actions without messaging. No need to limit our ethical interventions
4
@Dojovo
I'm not sure your logic is all that great. Think about it.
2
#2 Your advice to address with the manager was not the best way to address the problem. The manager and other staff would continue to give preferential treatment when the volunteer was not there. The best way to address this problem is to send a letter to the Board of Directors of the charity. That would get everybody's attention and solve the problem. At the very least the person should tell the manager if it doesn't stop she or he will go to the BOA.
36
@EdnaTN I would directly confront the customer for their shameful action. Disgusting!
1
#1
I also have a close friend desperately trying to find a kidney.
He is most likely not going to get one. Age, weight, general ill health.
I am not going to test and told him that. I am 68 with health issues. Wearing a 30 day Holter monitor right now.
30 years ago another close friend gave his brother a kidney. The brother went back to booze and died in 18 months.
We all walk alone.
7
#2 - talk to your supervisor. What the employees are doing is beyond wrong.
13
The time for LW#1 to tell the friend that they were willing to give her a kidney was at the beginning of the process. In fact 'pre-diabetes" (high A1Cr but not at the diabetic level) and "high cholesterol" almost certainly do not disqualify this person from donating a kidney. I would guess that 90 days of laying off dessert and sugar drinks would lower their A1C below 'pre-diabetes" and I'm not sure how the cholesterol is relevant. What is relevant is that this person thinks they are off the hook for donating the kidney but, amazingly, would still like to get credit for it.
52
@JerseyGirl
Harsh! Why be so inherently suspicious of someone who seemingly at least considered donating? It seems to me that she is now struggling with her feelings about it. If she simply "wanted to get credit" for it I don't think she would have written to an ethics columnist trying to sort it out. Even if she "wants credit," that is a natural human emotion as well. We aren't actually under an ethical imperative to donate organs. It is a good thing to do, but not a requirement, so I think it is understandable if a person feels some confusion about what to do exactly, in somewhat ambiguous circumstances.
You seem to believe when she said she didn't quality, she must be lying, but I see no reason to suspect that. It is easy to say she should just lay off sugar or whatever, but that may not be exactly what she was told by the doctors or the program administrators. I suspect they prefer donors who are already healthy enough to donate rather than people who would have to go on a diet first? You don't know exactly what the medical reasoning was here.
17
@JerseyGirl Wow. Be careful when you get down off that pedestal, you might trip and fall down here amongst us mortals. LW#1 was looking for clarity in her thinking, not a lecture about the evils of dessert and soda. Can you try to be a little nicer?
26
Exactly. If not tooting you own horn is the most gracious course of conduct in the first place, why is tooting your horn in the second place a good thing? I would be flummoxed were a friend to tell me she wanted to help me but couldn't. Just keep your mouth shut, for heaven's sake.
6
For letter writer #2 - don't be surprised. I locate missing heirs for intestate probates, probates in which the heirs rarely knew the decedent or even heard their name. Ever. Naturally there are genealogical research and legal fees incurred that are paid from the estate monies. At no time does the heir ever pay out of pocket. I explain to heirs that this is akin to a genetic lottery where they just happened to luck out. If heirs are poor or middle class, they are pleased to receive a lucky windfall. But the affluent ones, especially doctors and lawyers, contest and delay the proceedings demanding something for free. Often one of the less financially blessed heirs dies while the squabbling by the rich relations hinders a payout. There is no way any heir can organize the beneficiaries and prove the distant relationships, but that does not keep the ones who live in one million dollar plus homes from negatively impacting their less fortunate kin who are sometimes one step from homeless.
8
@Eli, as a marketer of a product that substantially helps those older, I have found that wealthy people are far more prudent with their money than everyone else. They are by far the hardest sale, even though it might benefit them significantly.
3
To writer #1 -
So you might have donated a kidney to a friend, but ultimately couldn't. What would be the point of telling her that? For the warm fuzzy of knowing that you had good intentions? If you want to support her, great... but there are better and more concrete ways of doing so.
Maybe you could organize a meal train, hold a fundraiser, promote a get-tested search to find a donor, see if there are ways that you can get a donation chain going if your friend cannot find a direct donor.
But I would stay silent about the kidney donation that never was. Really, that information is ultimately no more useful to her than patting your friend on the hand and telling her that she is in your prayers. It does nothing for her and makes it all about you.
49
@K.P., I disagree. The extensive tests underwent and the clear willingness to undergo major surgery just for her friend tells her friend that there is someone who cares about her in a substantial way. This can be really helpful emotionally at a time in her friend's life that is very depressing.
42
@K.P.
YMMV, but I would most certainly want to know if a friend had made efforts toward donating an organ to me, even if it didn't work out!
If she feels like her friend would be burdened by the information, or find it more stressful or feel guilty or some such, then I wouldn't tell; otherwise I think I would probably tell.
11
My thoughts exactly and said way be than I could. Thank you.
1
I would advise not to tell and stay away from such painfully personal subjects. Whatever are the medical condition, and feelings of empathy, care, and charity, one's body and its organs are no one else's matter.
5
@Tuvw Xyz If that were the case, how could anyone agree to put on a register as an organ recipient? And, FYI, friends do share "personal subjects". That's what friends are for.
8
to LW #1:
do you KNOW how many people in the U.S. have "pre diabetes"??
Almost everyone who is overweight could be said to fall into that category, or be on the verge of it. "Pre diabetes" is NOT "diabetes". If LW #1 was not placed on meds for diabetes, not told to keep track of her blood sugar daily, and so on, and has in fact now corrected the condition, she most likely CAN donate.
Same with high cholesterol, if it is now controlled.
See : http://www.livedonortoolkit.com/medical-toolkit/kidney-donation-people-pre-diabetes
or see : https://www.medpagetoday.org/meetingcoverage/asn/35780?vpass=1
Did the donor rating people tell her she couldn't donate or is she assuming it? Get a second opinion, as whoever mentioned it may be basing that on outdated beliefs.
53
@RLiss, plus if you really can't, that 's all you need to say, not chatter about her kidney problem lead you to better health.
6
Mr. Appiah - you state: "Let me suggest, though, that a business, although it certainly has practices, doesn’t really have a moral character. It’s individual men and women who have characters." While I agree with you here, unfortunately the Supreme Court disagrees, having asserted as a matter of law that corporations are people and can have religions, thus implying they have moral characters
21
@faith
The tale that will not die. Courts (not the Roberts court, as many seem to believe, but going back to the mid-1800's) have created corporate personhood in order to allow certain transactional realities, like the ability to sue and be sued, for instance. (As in do you want to sue GM as a corporate person, or sue each and every one of the millions of shareholders, the actual "owners" of GM, individually?) That does not make them the same a natural persons, humans like you and me, in any way.
One may quibble about the extent to which entities like corporations should have identities beyond mere business, but while you protest their potentially having religions (or is it certain moral beliefs?), many also now demand that companies publicly take non-business stands on issues across a broad spectrum that are equally as thorny as religious views.
21
Corporations have never been held to be “people.” There is a difference in law. They have been held to be “persons” with respect to certain constitutional protections afforded only to “persons.”
4
@faith
It's fair to say that businesses or corporations can have a culture that can be defined as moral or immoral.
.
All sorts of immoral acts of individuals within the business or corporation may be tolerated, hidden from outsiders or supported. Examples range from racial discrimination and sexual assault to environmental pollution and financial fraud.
In that sense, a business has a moral culture.
9
Depending on the length and the nature of the friendship, I think it would be acceptable to say, "If my health would have allowed, I would have gladly donated one of my kidneys so you may return to good health," while not divulging testing that precludes her from being able to do so.
I don't regard this in the same light as acts of charity to a stranger, because indeed, a donor friend would stand to also benefit from the improved health of an ailing friend in that they can participate in more activities freely without worry, grief and a cloud of uncertainty regarding the latter's prognosis. When one is suffering, I think it is heartwarming and reassuring to know someone cares enough to be invested--literally--in one's life.
What I found more troubling was the notion of saying to the ailing friend, in essence, "I wanted to help, but couldn't due to my health; but because of your ailing health, I found a path to improve mine." When one is suffering and in decline, and a close friend or relative takes actions to become healthier, a chasm forms or widens--the former may worry she may be left behind or pitied especially if there is little she can do but wait and hope.
While the ailing one would like to be supportive of her friend's improved health, she may feel more alone in her despair knowing her ailments are the underlying reason for her friend's improvement than if her friend just decided out of the blue to get healthy.
32
The Ethicist goes too easy on the nonprofit organization, which violates its own policies to offer discounts to favored customers -- whom we might call "Friends of Management."
If this isn't stealing -- stealing from the poor, no less -- it comes awfully close.
113
@K D P I agree. I don't think resellers, managers, decorators, etc. should be given special pricing over poor people who may shop there, nor should they ever really get to swoop in as soon as items hit the shelves and skim the cream off the top.
I remember a time when you could walk into a Salvation Army and come out with some nice quality articles of clothing. These days, the good brands are either swiped up by local resellers or sold directly by charities themselves on Ebay to the highest bidder nationally or internationally.
45
@Rhonda The problem is more people sell their good stuff on ebay, neighborhood facebook pages, garage sales. What’s unsellable gets donated.
1
@Rhonda I agree entirely. That’s why I don’t donate to those organizations anymore. It takes a little more time, but I find people who need stuff and give it to them for free.
1
Letter One, Kidney Donor: No. Don't test, fail and tell. Really help your Friend, by personally assisting with the search for a suitable Donor. It not about you.
Letter Two, Volunteer: Everyone gets the " discount " or no one gets it. It's basic fairness, and decency. Speak up.
Letter Three, discrimination: Yes, they were caught. And probably will be again, eventually. Happy shopping.
Next ???
20
If she can't donate the kidney, why does she want to tell the friend?
17
@fast/furious that is why she is asking her question - she wants to let her friend know that she was willing to do it, but not able (i.e. "I love you, friend, and would do this for you, but my health won't permit it") but is conflicted for a couple of reasons.
(1) it will let her friend know how much she cares for her, but conversely,
(2) it makes the sick friend's problem all about the letter-writer and her need for martyrdom head-pats ("I would have sacrificed for you!"), and, subtly, "It's a good thing you need a kidney 'cause otherwise I would never have found out about my own (more easily) correctable health issues - thanks!"
At least the letter-writer is self-aware and has asked for help. So few people never get past the ME ME ME is every situation.
29
@binkle She is a woman in her 50's and she has to ask this question . Comments in this column won't get her past ME .
4
In the last example, considering the information that you have, it is certainly ethical to do business with them. It would be unethical to not keep a close eye on the situation concerning future transgressions.
12
Regarding Letter 3, it may be true that the company was "caught" but it is also possible that they really didn't do anything wrong but settled in order to avoid lengthy proceedings or publicity. It would be more telling if there were actual sanctions levied against the firm. But allegations alone are not proof, and a technical violation which they corrected may not have been intentional discrimination.
Bottom line, if there is no actual proof of intentional bad or repetitive conduct, then there really isn't a moral dilemma.
24
@George S It could also be true that the company behaved egregiously, continues to behave egregiously, and settled in order to make the problem go away. There are plenty of very high profile examples of this.
We don't really know which is the case, do we?
29
@CF I am thinking about this in a totally different sort of way. The company has what is known as a bad reputation. Yes, they settled which fulfills a legal obligation but does not settle a moral obligation. It is possible that they settled for expediency but they do not get to reap a virtuous reputation for being expedient. It is completely acceptable to not use them because either of their actions seem morally compromised.
13
@Christopher Franklin How do you settle the moral obligation of past actions? They presumably don't have a working time-machine. They paid the penalty; that is the most they can do. One can of course choose to do business with then or not, but that choice doesn't really address the present, only the past. I'm surprised how we have become a nation of righteous warriors, willing and even eager to punish.
14