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.
Hmmm.....somehow I can envision a society where people are targeted and killed for their organs.
Yes, I recall that same situation going on in China. If someone wants to buy an organ, the prisoner is matched and given anti-coagulation drugs, then a public execution, and finally the harvesting. The video was shown on a 60 Minutes like program several years ago to benefit anyone with the money to pay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_...oners_in_China
There have also been U.S. reports of medical workers failing to treat serious injuries so that they could administer anti-clotting drugs before harvesting. Who should then be charged with murder? We have heard of the fetus harvesting by Planned Parenthood.
Even for those who donate body parts, the medical community makes huge profits off your parts and often people who might benefit, can't afford to buy the components.There have also been reports of people who do not donate end up being harvested without their families knowledge. Those with the highest social value are the only ones who will benefit.
Yes, I recall that same situation going on in China. If someone wants to buy an organ, the prisoner is matched and given anti-coagulation drugs, then a public execution, and finally the harvesting. The video was shown on a 60 Minutes like program several years ago to benefit anyone with the money to pay.
There have also been U.S. reports of medical workers failing to treat serious injuries so that they could administer anti-clotting drugs before harvesting. Who should then be charged with murder? We have heard of the fetus harvesting by Planned Parenthood.
Even for those who donate body parts, the medical community makes huge profits off your parts and often people who might benefit, can't afford to buy the components.There have also been reports of people who do not donate end up being harvested without their families knowledge. Those with the highest social value are the only ones who will benefit.
Currently, we leave the decision regarding organ donation up to the individual or the individual's family. I believe this is unethical.
Compulsory organ donation violates an individual's 1st Amendment right regarding religion, their 1st Amendment right regarding freedom of association and freedom from association, their 4th Amendment right to privacy, their 4th Amendment right to search and seizure, their 5th Amendment right to due process regarding their personal property, and also their 6th Amendment right regarding matters of controversy that are greater than $20 in value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost
I think it is because they have the potential to save many lives.
Did it ever occur to you that Nature intended for those persons to die as a matter of the process of Natural Selection?
I don't recall naming you as the Arbiter of Nature, or even the Over-Seer of Natural Selection.
Did you ever bother to read the studies related to medical treatment related to organ donors?
When doctors know a person is an organ donor, doctors tend not to perform extraordinary attempts to save someone's life, and often don't even engage in normal attempts to save someone's life. Doctors quickly give up, instead of giving it that "old college try," because time is critical when harvesting organs and tissue.
Freedom of religion applies to people. Dead bodies do not have religious beliefs. Therefore, it is impossible to violate the dead person's religious freedom.
Your rights extend beyond death. I would cite the relevant case-law, but it would take several weeks and a few hundred posts to cover it.
Note that members of certain religions are exempted from State laws regarding autopsies, precisely because their constitutional rights extend after death.
Even if we accepted what you said as true, a dead person does not become property of the State upon death, rather it becomes property of the next-of-kin, and they do have rights.
Even if I was dying, or a loved one was dying, I would not feel I had the right to the organs in someone else's body. I wasn't raised to feel entitled to what is not mine.
OP your beliefs are of concern to me because you have a looter's mentality. Even more disturbing that it applies to human organs.
-It would create a society where people are more valuable dead than alive.
-It would create a society where being born with a specific blood/tissue type renders you a valuable birth; so that you can be a valuable death.
-A society where those with the potential to reproduce those highly prized blood & tissue types are deemed worthy to live ... but only if you agree to use your childbearing years to your fullest potential.
-Meaning this would primarily impact women or worse; girls; turning us into Petri dishes to satisfy supply/demand.
-Well; at least until middle-age/menopause. I guess then we can surrender our organs in deference to the men that have another 20-30 years of viable tissue reproduction potential.
It should not be compulsory because that would be equivocal to slavery & it would condone the exploitation of women & children.
It should also not be compulsory, because if the NIH had spent more time doing its job over the last few decades; rather than hyper-focusing on a certain already compulsory matter of public health?
We could probably be regenerating these organs out of a few cells by now & every person in desperate need of a transplant could receive a brand new, custom-compatible organ.
The Jahi McMath case (https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/62464...n-death-has-di) got me thinking about organ donation. Currently, we leave the decision regarding organ donation up to the individual or the individual's family. I believe this is unethical.
The importance of respecting the family's wishes (or the individual's) regarding a dead body with usable organs does not outweigh the importance of actually saving the lives of living humans who need those organs. This simple utilitarian argument seems indisputable, at least on utilitarian grounds.
Let's say you aren't a utilitarian, however. It seems the main argument one might make against my reasoning is that the individual or the family have some sort of "ownership" of the organs, at least in the sense that they should be able to dictate what happens to them. But I don't think this is true. First, let's start with the individual. That individual no longer exists. It doesn't seem cogent to say that a person who no longer exists owns his or her organs. A dead person doesn't own anything. I also think it's very problematic to say that the family owns the organs. We don't recognize any sort of familial ownership of organs during life, so why does this suddenly begin at death?
It seems to me that compulsory organ donation would clearly save lives, and this benefit outweighs any harm that might be caused by denying family members the right to reject such donations. I can't see why we don't currently require organ donation in all cases in which the organs are viable.
Really? You aren't going to leave that decision up to the individual? How very big government of you.
I work in a hospital and there are so many steps for a brain dead donor to go through that it doesn't always result in an organ donation.
I think the real solution to organ donation is to have valid organ donors go to the top of the list if they are in need of an organ. Why should someone who refuses to be an organ donor receive an organ that they themselves would not give?
At a time when millions in the US and billions around the world lack basic medical care, and the cost of care in the US alone is astronomical and millions have no insurance, and the world is facing overpopulation and dwindling resources, advocating that people be forced to give up their organs so they can be used in a massively expensive health-care endeavor seems very short-sighted. The money for that one transplant of a liver from an unwilling donor could supply vaccines, PAP smears, and blood pressures check to thousands, or cleft palate repairs to dozens.
I believe being an organ donor is the right thing to do.
I believe people should have the right to decide if they want to be an organ donor.
I think signing up for the donation registry should be automatic when you renew your driver's license, leaving you the choice of opting out.
And I think if you choose NOT, to be an organ donor, you cannot receive organs if you become ill and need a transplant. Tough cookies. Too late to change your mind then. That's it.
If you opt out of being an organ donor, I would send a mailing/email every year asking if they want to continue their opt out. Some people will change their mind over time.
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.
