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 man who did the Colorado shootings needs a transplant...you want to give your organs?
A member of the KKK needs a transplant...you want to give your organs over helping someone else who is more deserving in your values?
A elected official who has done much harm to society by engaging in corruption and power abuse needs a transplant...would you rather choose him over a good member of society?
I really am suprised to say the least, that people are this close minded! Morals are not universal! The only thing we can do is respect each others differences in our values and morals while protecting each others freedom and liberty.
No. In fact, in my view, neither the person nor the family should have control about whether the organs of a deceased person can be transplanted, or to whom it may be transplanted.
I see. So going by that logic, one should also not have control over final wishes with money and estate. Is that what you are saying as well? Do we own our bodies? Is there such a thing as respecting last wishes?
You get to say if your organs will be donated or not -- and why shouldn't you decide as you wish?
For example, if you always took very good care of your liver, why couldn't you say that the recipient of it be someone who doesn't use drugs or drink himself to death but rather someone who will also take care of it?
I think if people had more say, you'd find more people willing to donate, more lives would be saved. Maybe people would actually give it more thought if they could think about the kind of people they'd want to save.
Yup. Leaving it up to medical professionals is probably best. No one person's life is more important than another. Certainly not because you disagree with them.
Maybe to overall society, one person's life isn't more important but as individuals, definitely some people are more important than others. You can do a directed donation of your blood, and you can do a directed donation of your kidney or part of your liver when you're alive. Many people will donate a part of their liver to their own relative but wouldn't dream of giving up half of it for a stranger.
How would a medical professional's choice be more important than your own choice? The medical professional may decide that the guy who has had two liver transplants but is still holding down a job no longer counts and decide your liver is going to go to the drug addict who never worked a day in his life. Maybe you'd rather donate to the hard-working guy who is trying as hard as he can and give him a chance for another 10 to 20 years.
Criteria will be used -- either by yourself or some one else. Medical professionals are allowing thousands of people to die -- because they value certain types over them. How is that not deciding some lives are more important?
imo it should be legislated that as a standard everyone is an organdonor, but they could revoke that if they want to, so they wouldn't be forced.
However if that is revoked, the individual cancels his/her right to recieve transplantations as well.
Because it reverses the choice from having to take active step for donating to having tot ake active steps not to it should make for a much higher rate of donors,
and those who don't wanna contribute get canceled out from the population that needs to be saved as well, which may lessen the demand.
As a organ donor myself I could care less if my organs went to a mass murderer or the Pope. The issue becomes once you are dead does it really matter anymore? That being said I can't remember hearing about the last time a "mass murderer" got a Organ transplant!
I had organ donor taken off my license. Not because of who the organs would go to but the purpose.
I do not want tissue going for plumping up someone's lips or penile implantation. I only want major organs donated for life saving measures. My family knows my wishes and wi convey them. This is what I was told to do if I wanted to control which parts were donated. I really don't care who they go to if they can save a life.
I don't believe there should be any stipulations allowed in donor recipients, except only giving organs to people who were organ donors themselves (unless illegible - children, people with certain cancers or other illnesses, etc). Due to lymphoma, I can no longer give blood, marrow, or organs except my eyes. I always felt strange about giving my corneas, but the second that was the only thing I could give, I became all for it. I don't care if my corneas go to an innocent 5 year old or a Christian, conservative Republican man (my exact opposite :P)... the point is helping humanity.
I don't believe there should be any stipulations allowed in donor recipients, except only giving organs to people who were organ donors themselves (unless illegible - children, people with certain cancers or other illnesses, etc). Due to lymphoma, I can no longer give blood, marrow, or organs except my eyes. I always felt strange about giving my corneas, but the second that was the only thing I could give, I became all for it. I don't care if my corneas go to an innocent 5 year old or a Christian, conservative Republican man (my exact opposite :P)... the point is helping humanity.
The OP is entirely selfish, in my opinion.
Or just extremely controlling.
I used to joke that attorneys and accountants could set up a business dealing with wills and trust funds and call it "post-mortem financial plannin." My guess is they'd clean up.
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.