In Jain dharma, aparigraha means non-possessiveness and non-attachment, not careless abandonment of duty.

So in such a situation, the guiding principle is:

• First, do not cause avoidable himsa.
• Second, act with compassion and restraint.
• Third, do not cling to “my child” or “my possession” in a way that increases suffering.

If the medicine is truly rare and giving it away would likely save two lives, then sharing it can be a noble act of compassion, provided it does not become a greater violence by directly and unnecessarily destroying the life you are responsible for protecting.

But Jain ethics does not teach that aparigraha means you must always give away what you have, even if that would amount to abandoning a dependent and causing preventable death. Aparigraha is renunciation of attachment, not renunciation of responsibility.

So the Jain way is to ask:

• Which action causes less himsa?
• Which action is done with less attachment?
• Which action is more compassionate and responsible?

If the medicine can be divided or another lawful source exists, then sharing may be the more Jain choice. If giving it away would mean certainly losing your child when no other remedy exists, then Jain dharma would not call that ideal aparigraha; it would be a conflict of duties where one must avoid the greatest possible himsa.

In short: Aparigraha means letting go of possessiveness, not abandoning dharma of care and protection.