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.
2. The problem isn't undefined. I've defined it quite clearly: Roughly 7300 people are dying mostly preventable deaths because they do not have access to organs.
3. Of course people die every day. That isn't a justification for allowing preventable deaths. I don't think you actually believe that preventing the deaths of innocent people isn't a good thing.
4. No, of course not. Do you really think my style of writing and the quality of my ideas is what one would expect from a grade schooler?
You can't take someone's organ against their will, dead or alive. If someone wants to be buried with their organs intact, and 30 children could use the body parts, then that's too bad, the children cannot be saved. You can never allow the taking or use of one's body parts without their approval and permission. There's nothing more to say. The needs of the many DO NOT outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
You can't take someone's organ against their will, dead or alive. If someone wants to be buried with their organs intact, and 30 children could use the body parts, then that's too bad, the children cannot be saved. You can never allow the taking or use of one's body parts without their approval and permission. There's nothing more to say. The needs of the many DO NOT outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Dead people don't have desires or intentions, so therefore it is impossible to take something against their will.
Think about your scenario regarding the thirty children: Who is harmed if the organs are taken? Is the dead person harmed? Of course not. On the other hand, thirty children dying preventable deaths is a tragedy. I simply cannot believe you are prioritizing the desires a person had when they were alive, even though they are now dead, over the lives of thirty children.
I disagree with your last sentence. Let's change the stakes. What if it were a million people who could somehow be saved by using the organs of one dead person. Would you seriously let one million die? A billion? Is there any number where you recognize that the importance of saving the lives is greater than the importance of respecting the wishes of a person who is now dead and is not going to be harmed by having their organs used?
I think the fundamental disagreement in much of this thread is that dead bodies are not the people who once inhabited those bodies. Dead bodies are simply lumps of organic material that are destined to rot into soil, nothing more. They have no more moral significance than the dirt in one's garden.
I think the fundamental disagreement in much of this thread is that dead bodies are not the people who once inhabited those bodies. Dead bodies are simply lumps of organic material that are destined to rot into soil, nothing more. They have no more moral significance than the dirt in one's garden.
All of the above is merely your opinion. You don't know whether or not, after death, the deceased has any awareness of what happens to his physical body. You don't know if the deceased or his family considers the body to have "no more moral significance than dirt."
And what in the world makes you believe your opinion on what should happen to a dead body are more important than the individual's previously stated wishes or the wishes of his family?!?
Dead people don't have desires or intentions, so therefore it is impossible to take something against their will.
Think about your scenario regarding the thirty children: Who is harmed if the organs are taken? Is the dead person harmed? Of course not. On the other hand, thirty children dying preventable deaths is a tragedy. I simply cannot believe you are prioritizing the desires a person had when they were alive, even though they are now dead, over the lives of thirty children.
I disagree with your last sentence. Let's change the stakes. What if it were a million people who could somehow be saved by using the organs of one dead person. Would you seriously let one million die? A billion? Is there any number where you recognize that the importance of saving the lives is greater than the importance of respecting the wishes of a person who is now dead and is not going to be harmed by having their organs used?
I think the fundamental disagreement in much of this thread is that dead bodies are not the people who once inhabited those bodies. Dead bodies are simply lumps of organic material that are destined to rot into soil, nothing more. They have no more moral significance than the dirt in one's garden.
Again with the utilitarianism.
It could be a trillion people. It doesn't matter. A person should have the right to dispose of their body in any manner they wish, regardless of the needs or wishes of everyone else on the planet. And yes, the entire planet should die before violating this right.
And while dead people don't have desires or intentions, living people do. if I know that my body will not be disposed of according to my wishes, it will cause me distress and pain while I am alive. That's the point. We have a right to live our lives with the knowledge and confidence that our bodies will be disposed of according to our wishes. That's how civilization should conduct itself.
I don't want emergency personnel or doctors looking for spare parts while I'm dying. I want them to use every bit of technology and skill to save me. If I can not be saved after that, they are free to take all the organs they want.
I have already told my spouse and other relatives my wishes. I don't need a mandatory proclamation.
All of the above is merely your opinion. You don't know whether or not, after death, the deceased has any awareness of what happens to his physical body.
Simply because an issue is a "matter of opinion" doesn't mean all opinions are equally well-reasoned or informed. Your local meteorologist gives his or her opinion on the weather forecast every night, but I can't claim "That's just your opinion!" and think my thoughts on the weather are equal to his or hers.
The reticular formation is the portion of the brain responsible for consciousness (in the sense of wakefulness and alertness). If the reticular formation isn't active, the person isn't aware. This isn't my opinion. This has been demonstrated countless times in hospitals all across the country.
People who are brain dead have no activity in any portion of their brain, including the reticular formation. Thus, they are not aware of anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne
You don't know if the deceased or his family considers the body to have "no more moral significance than dirt."
I do know that the deceased doesn't consider his body to have moral significance. I know that because the deceased doesn't consider anything. That's the nature of being brain dead.
I never said anything about what the family considers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne
And what in the world makes you believe your opinion on what should happen to a dead body are more important than the individual's previously stated wishes or the wishes of his family?!?
My opinion is better reasoned. The individual is no longer around to be harmed by the outcome of his or her body. The living people who can be saved have a great deal at stake, whereas the dead person has no interests whatsoever because he or she no longer exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snebarekim
One makes the decision when one is alive. Should that not be respected?
Most Muslims believe, by way of faith, that a body should be buried "aiktimal" (complete, intact) on the day of death.
Would you want compulsary legislation that pushed against that by those of faith?
No, it shouldn't be respected because the dead person has nothing at stake and cannot be harmed. The living person who might be saved by the organs has everything at stake and can be harmed.
I would support legislation that doesn't allow religious exceptions to this policy. I don't see why the family's desires are relevant here. The family didn't own Smiths heart when Smith was living. Why should they own it now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
Again with the utilitarianism.
It could be a trillion people. It doesn't matter. A person should have the right to dispose of their body in any manner they wish, regardless of the needs or wishes of everyone else on the planet. And yes, the entire planet should die before violating this right.
Then I think we simply have a fundamental moral disagreement. If you would let a trillion people die simply to avoid going against a dead person's dying wishes, then there is probably nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. That seems plainly immoral to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
We have a right to live our lives with the knowledge and confidence that our bodies will be disposed of according to our wishes. That's how civilization should conduct itself.
Where did that right come from? Are you just making that up, or is there some sort of source for that right?
No, your opinion is YOUR opinion. It's not better or more valid than anyone else's opinion. That is in fact the nature of OPINIONS. They are not facts.
No, your opinion is YOUR opinion. It's not better or more valid than anyone else's opinion. That is in fact the nature of OPINIONS. They are not facts.
So if a meteorologist holds the opinion that it is likely to rain tomorrow, his opinion isn't any better than that of a person who knows nothing about the weather and has flipped a coin to determine that it will be sunny tomorrow? You can't be serious.
There are two types of opinion matters:
1. Matters where there is no underlying truth, such as "Red is the best color."
2. Matters where there is an underlying truth, but that truth is not easily objectively demonstrable, such as "String theory best explains the origins of the universe" or "It is going to rain tomorrow."
Opinions of the first type are arbitrary, and reasoning doesn't help one hold a better opinion. Opinions of the second type are not arbitrary, however, because there is truth to be had. Since there is actually such a thing as right or wrong regarding the second type, once can utilize good or bad reasoning when developing an opinion.
There is truth to the question of what happens after death. There is also truth to the question of whether the physical brain has experiences once it dies. It is clearly an "opinion" of the second type, thus not all opinions are equal.
Do you really believe all opinions are equal in all matters? Think about some unknown scientific question, such as how best to explain dark matter. Do you think all of the scientists who have years of training and are extremely intelligent aren't more likely to hold a good opinion about the explanation of dark matter than some average Joe walking down the street?
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.
The above well-thought-out response is the best way to go about it. Americans are born free and above every thing else they do not like to be bossed around by theirs government.
You could finesse people into being unwilling donators of their organs by tripping them up in a whole lot of " Red Tape " and " Small Print ". This all could be done by small print on (driver's license) ( state ID cards )
( passports ) and maybe even on the backs of
credit cards.
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.
