Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The legal recognition of a contract is not the same thing as a right.
That is in no way similar or analogous to what I am suggesting. Taking the organs of dead people is not comparable to taking the organs of living people. Surely you do seriously think this is a legitimate response.
Is there any evidence that this is actually happening to any significant degree? Citing the plaintiff in one lawsuit does not constitute real data.
Where did I do that? I have simply disagreed with the arguments people have presented. That is what happens in a debate. Several other posters here have insulted me personally (including yourself, by calling me a bully), but I have not called anyone any names or done anything other than refute arguments.
You are simply making a legal argument. I am not arguing that we should harvest organs and break the law. I am saying we should change the laws to require the harvesting of organs from corpses. Pointing to current laws doesn't refute an argument about what our laws should be.
You admit that the organs don't belong to anyone. I agree. But you don't think that the importance of saving the lives of living humans is great enough to take these organs -- that don't belong to anyone -- and give them to someone whose life depends on it?
I agree that, at least currently, the family does have a say. I am arguing that they shouldn't.
We aren't forcing anyone other than the family, and the organs don't belong to them anyway. The person who "owned" the organs no longer exists.
To whatever extent forcing families to give up the organs is wrong, letting living humans die because when they could otherwise live seems to be a greater wrong.
As with anything else, I believe there would be exceptions to a rewritten law where an individual could claim religious exemption and skirt it just the same as they do other things.
No - not compulsory....but I would go for donation being the default. You should be made aware when you get/renew your driver's license that you by default are approving that you are a donor and that you must say otherwise if you don't want to.
You do know that family can trump that decision though - that often happens on the deathbed.
I agree with this - I think it should be opt out, meaning the default presumption is that everyone is a donor, but individuals can opt out by indicating that on their license. There's no way compulsory would be considered Constitutional of course.
I do think that if someone has affirmatively chosen to be a donor, that should be honored and not overridden by family although in an opt out scenario, I could see that being the case.
ETA: I have to presume that you and your loved ones are all signed on for organ donation when that time comes, right? Or worse case scenario, you (or a loved one) need an organ transplant. If indeed that is the case I am very sorry.
Well you've clearly addressed or should I say debated your point of view, however it doesn't seem you addressed/debated my ETA. Still waiting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost
Wow, I think you should check the rules for this forum. There's no room for personal attacks here. I've been debating genuinely without insulting anyone, and I think you should do the same.
Personal attacks? If you sincerely believe I have made personal attacks against you then I highly recommend that you report me and if you are just in your assessment I will gladly accept my infraction.
The "we" is society.
No, I disagree it will not be "society" if it is compulsory it will be the Federal, State and/or local government who will enforce this, and as I have already mentioned we, the people have more than enough government dictating what we, the people can and cannot do with our lives...and that's my debate to you.
There is a difference between stating a position and defending a position. Considering this is a debate forum, I was pointing out that you had only stated your position. I agree that your position is clear. I wasn't saying it was unclear.
Debate, verb - argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner.
"the board debated his proposal" · synonyms: discuss · confer about · talk over · talk through · talk about · exchange views on · exchange views about · thrash out · argue · argue about · argue the pros and cons of · dispute · wrangle over · bandy words concerning · contend over · contest · controvert · moot · kick around/about · bat around/about · altercate
As long as it is in my power I would have my body burned on a pyre (or in a ditch somewhere) before I allowed that to happen.
I honestly think that is an immoral position.
Are you debating now or giving me your opinion?
You would allow another person to die because they couldn't get a transplant before you would allow the government to use your organs after you are dead? You do realize that you won't exist anymore, and it won't harm you in any way, right?
Then by all means, by your definition I am immoral and I am quite alright with that. How do you know I won't exist anymore, my religion may differ from yours greatly and I am entitled to that, yes I said I am entitled. I may just exist in a different realm and you don't know that I won't.
How would this increase organ trafficking?
If anything, it should reduce it by reducing the number of people who need transplants but can't get organs.
Someday in a utopian world there still may not be enough organs for all who need them and then what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost
Wills exist to settle disputes among your survivors about your property. It isn't inconsistent to say that you can't stipulate what happens to your organs. That is simply an exception, not an inconsistency.
I am confused why no one here seems to be seriously considering the importance of saving the lives of living people who might otherwise die if they don't get a transplant. Has anyone here had a family member need a transplant? Do you all honestly believe these "I want to specify what happens to my organs when I'm dead" concerns outweigh the concern of saving lives?
It's unfortunate that you're confused but I suppose that what happens in Great Debates
As I said to another poster, I am not making an argument about what the laws currently allow. I am making an argument about what the laws should be.
Which is it again? Society or government?
Congratulations, you've stirred the cauldron and got your debate.
Wills exist to settle disputes among your survivors about your property. It isn't inconsistent to say that you can't stipulate what happens to your organs. That is simply an exception, not an inconsistency.
I am confused why no one here seems to be seriously considering the importance of saving the lives of living people who might otherwise die if they don't get a transplant. Has anyone here had a family member need a transplant? Do you all honestly believe these "I want to specify what happens to my organs when I'm dead" concerns outweigh the concern of saving lives?
What about people who feel it's wrong to take body parts out of one person and put them into another based on moral or religious reasons? And what about people who've seen what happens on organ transplant services and want no part of that on either the donating or receiving end?
Organ donation shouldn't be mandatory, but it should be the default unless one specifically opts out. And opting out of organ donation should be heavily stigmatized.
Organ donation shouldn't be mandatory, but it should be the default unless one specifically opts out. And opting out of organ donation should be heavily stigmatized.
I think it should be the default, but opting out should be stigmatized? My body is the only thing that I've ever really owned.
The organ transplant process goes through a centralized system that would protect against this. You can't just find a body and say "Let me get this liver transplanted in to me."
There's a black market for everything, especially when high dollars are involved.
As with anything else, I believe there would be exceptions to a rewritten law where an individual could claim religious exemption and skirt it just the same as they do other things.
Possibly. But I meant this as a "How should we structure our society?" question, not a question about whether this could fit in our current legal framework.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeIsWhere...
Well you've clearly addressed or should I say debated your point of view, however it doesn't seem you addressed/debated my ETA. Still waiting.
I'm a donor. So is my wife. I'm not really sure what the relevance of that is to our discussion, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeIsWhere...
Personal attacks? If you sincerely believe I have made personal attacks against you then I highly recommend that you report me and if you are just in your assessment I will gladly accept my infraction.
You asked me if I was being purposely obtuse. I think that is clearly a personal attack. If your question is whether I am being purposely obtuse, you are clearly saying that I am being obtuse. That's not needed in a genuine discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeIsWhere...
No, I disagree it will not be "society" if it is compulsory it will be the Federal, State and/or local government who will enforce this, and as I have already mentioned we, the people have more than enough government dictating what we, the people can and cannot do with our lives...and that's my debate to you.
Government is an expression of society if that government is representative.
I am not suggesting that the government do something with your life. I am suggesting they do something with your organs once your life is over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeIsWhere...
Are you debating now or giving me your opinion?
Most debates involve a matter of opinion. It is difficult to debate how many inches are in a foot or what color is produce when blue and yellow are mixed. What society should or should not do is probably a matter of opinion, so long as we take "opinion" to include anything that is not an objectively demonstrable fact. But some matters of opinion do in fact have an objective truth to them, we just aren't in a position to know what is true at this time. Not all matters of opinion are like "Which color is best?" Some are more like "What is the origin of the universe?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeIsWhere...
Then by all means, by your definition I am immoral and I am quite alright with that. How do you know I won't exist anymore, my religion may differ from yours greatly and I am entitled to that, yes I said I am entitled. I may just exist in a different realm and you don't know that I won't.
1. Without getting into the weeds of whether an afterlife exists, I think we can clearly say that, if you do exist, you at least won't be using your body anymore.
2. It should be clear here that your organs and flesh are going to rot no matter what. The only question is whether your perfectly usable organs rot as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeIsWhere...
Someday in a utopian world there still may not be enough organs for all who need them and then what?
Then there wouldn't be enough organs. I'm not sure I understand the relevance of the question. In that utopian society, there might still be crime. Does that mean we should have police departments to fight crime? Simply because we can't remove all of a bad thing doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to remove any of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeIsWhere...
Congratulations, you've stirred the cauldron and got your debate.
I'm not sure why you seem to think that me posting a controversial question in a forum designed for controversial questions is out of bounds. My goal wasn't to "stir the cauldron." My goal was to have a real discussion about what I view as an important issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCZ
What about people who feel it's wrong to take body parts out of one person and put them into another based on moral or religious reasons? And what about people who've seen what happens on organ transplant services and want no part of that on either the donating or receiving end?
Religious freedom applies to people. I'm not suggesting we do anything to people. I'm suggesting we do something to dead bodies. I don't see why dead bodies should be afforded religious freedom. A basic tenet of religious freedom is that you have beliefs of some kind. Dead bodies do not have beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalmancpa
There's a black market for everything, especially when high dollars are involved.
Well sure, but wouldn't my suggestion here reduce the demand for black market organs? If anything, this would improve on the problem you're discussing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74
There's no way compulsory would be considered Constitutional of course.
Since when does the Constitution apply to dead bodies? I thought it applied to American citizens...as in people.
What happens to a person's organs after passing is not a concern of you or society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost
I think it is because they have the potential to save many lives.
If they aren't a concert of mine or society's, whose "concern" are they? The individual doesn't exist anymore. Why should a family be able to prevent a person from having a life saving transplant simply because they want their dead relative to be buried with perfectly functional organs?
I think that gun ownership should be compulsory because of all the lives that could be saved with every person owning a gun. See where this is going? Where does it end? Government, with limited exceptions, doesn't exist to coerce people into doing something they don't believe in, no matter how important you may think it is.
I think that gun ownership should be compulsory because of all the lives that could be saved with every person owning a gun. See where this is going? Where does it end? Government, with limited exceptions, doesn't exist to coerce people into doing something they don't believe in, no matter how important you may think it is.
I'm not suggesting the government coerce anyone into doing anything. We are referring to dead bodies, not people. Forcing a living person to do something is not analogous to requiring the organs of a dead person be given to a person whose life depends on them.
I think the key problem here is that a lot of people aren't seeing the distinction between a living person and a dead body.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
