Call me crazy, but I don't know which camp on this thread has turned me off more, the ones who are calling the sister a bitch without knowing one iota of the truth of the situation and why she might be hesitating, the camp that thinks she's a lesbian and therefore deserves extra contempt, the camp that thinks it's ok for a man to air his family's dirty laundry and attempt to shame and coerce his sister through the worldwide media, or the camp who thinks that when it comes to surgical procedures for the benefit of others, it's ok for government to compel them "a little" (we all know how that ends up).
My main objection to the entire story is the belief that because something can be done to save his life, it must be done, and that the sister should be demonized if she does not wish to supply body products to her brother. What about saving his soul instead, and relying on faith and prayer for an intervention, instead of desperately ruining his sister's reputation?
What if her brother has not known or cared if she were alive or dead for months or years at a time, and then he or his wife showed up making demands instead of a humble request, such as for prayer, which might then have led to a gentle change of conscience instead of an attempt to force her hand? He is demanding that she also risk her life and health, even though she is unmarried and has the responsibility of children of her own. If I were the sister, I think it would take a miracle to change my mind after having my name dragged through the mud.
> Call me crazy, but I don't know which camp on this thread has turned me off more, the ones who are calling the sister a bitch without knowing one iota of the truth of the situation and why she might be hesitating, the camp that thinks she's a lesbian and therefore deserves extra contempt, the camp that thinks it's ok for a man to air his family's dirty laundry and attempt to shame and coerce his sister through the worldwide media, or the camp who thinks that when it comes to surgical procedures for the benefit of others, it's ok for government to compel them "a little" (we all know how that ends up).
You're not crazy -- I definitely see where you are coming from: each of those themes have played out on this thread.
Speaking personally, I think it makes an excellent case for a robust VOLUNTARY and ANONYMOUS unrelated donor program.
Because it is cold to refuse to donate lifesaving material to a family member (particularly when it is so easy to do), it's difficult not to conclude that there is much more to this story that is not being told.
Best for all parties that can be done is for an unrelated donor to be found, and for him/her to donate.
Nobody likes to be told they are going to die, that they are mortal (tho' 100% of us are) so his reaction can be understood at some level. Hers can't be because her story hasn't been told: maybe she wants her privacy because her side of the story might be painful and embarrassing. He may not be a saint, he may not be worth saving...
Always dangerous to take sides in family quarrels! Not all families are The Brady Bunch or The Waltons.