Read Scott's posts again. He is specifically arguing in his jypotheticals that all organs should be harvested because he specifically assumes they are perfectly recyclable.
Because he doesn't have a good substantive argument. ;^)
Just because you might have some irrational, religious type feelings like Scott does, does not mean arguments against your position lack substance. This is the type of intolerance typical of irrational, religious thinking.
BTW, your arguments, taken on by Scott, have all failed, suffice to say. ;/
Read Scott's posts again. He is specifically arguing in his jypotheticals that all organs should be harvested because he specifically assumes they are perfectly recyclable.
I have not made any such argument. I clearly said there are many reasons for organs to be, or not to be, harvested. My only point is that the desires of the corpse, or the family of the corpse, should not be one of those reasons.
Read Scott's posts again. He is specifically arguing in his jypotheticals that all organs should be harvested because he specifically assumes they are perfectly recyclable.
I have not made any such argument. I clearly said there are many reasons for organs to be, or not to be, harvested. My only point is that the desires of the corpse, or the family of the corpse, should not be one of those reasons.
You need to re-read your own rreligious parables. You make those specific assumptions in addition to saying that the real world doesn't matter in your parable.
Also, you have never successfullly argued that people's feelings don't matter. You just make conclusory statements to that effect, just like a religious person would do
Read Scott's posts again. He is specifically arguing in his jypotheticals that all organs should be harvested because he specifically assumes they are perfectly recyclable.
I have not made any such argument. I clearly said there are many reasons for organs to be, or not to be, harvested. My only point is that the desires of the corpse, or the family of the corpse, should not be one of those reasons.
I think the wishes of people and their families do, in fact, matter in this regard; however, the lives that could be improved or saved with those organs should take moral precedence in any conceivable situation.
What happens to their organs after a person dies can't affect that person, since that person is gone. However, the assurance that their body will be treated in some specific way can be valuable to that person while alive, and a system where we tell the person they will be treated how they wish and then ignore those wishes clearly cannot be sustained. So, to a limited extent, I can see why we would want to treat people's corpses as they wished them to be treated. Similarly, I am not indifferent to the feelings of the corpse's family. I won't dispute that some people/families care about the treatment of corpses, though I do think that they shouldn't care, and, in particular, they should definitely care a lot more about the good that could be done with the organs.
Though the feelings of people and their families about corpses do matter, we as a society should recognise that saving lives is much more important. Churba makes a good point when he says this:
My personal values on the issue are contained above, but to give you the short simple version, I agree with some of the ideas that you present - That It is more valuable to save lives, than it is to have organs either rot in the ground or be turned to ash in a crematorium, for example, and that choosing to donate organs someone is no longer using is the more moral choice - but I also think that simply making it mandatory isn't enough, that you need to make it effectively mandatory not through the power of law but the power of culture and society, which make it more likely to extend far, far into the future, and which would in time make it trivial to pass a law to make it so - and not only would that law be easy to pass when organ donation is considered an acceptable standard of society, but people would actively fight anyone who tried to change it being so. I also think that employing such a solution would be of greater benefit for more people, and therefore is the better course of action, as the lives of the few in the short term do not compare to the lives of the uncountable many in the long term, to paraphrase.
Personally, I see no moral issue with making organ donation mandatory, but from a pragmatic perspective Churba has a point. It may be (though I'm not convinced) that there would be too much social backlash for such a law to pass. If so, then it is an issue we need to work on socially and culturally for the moment.
However, if it is indeed the case that a law that makes it mandatory is not at all viable, that doesn't mean the law is fine as it is. At the very least, it would be better to have a system where people opt out rather than opt in, because quite a lot of people end up simply going along with whatever the de facto standard happens to be. A mere change from opt-in to opt-out would make a huge difference, and also help to change how people think about the issue.
Meanwhile, to those people in this thread who would refuse to donate their organs, given the choice - I want to know why.
If so, then it is an issue we need to work on socially and culturally for the moment.
This is the best solution, I think. Sure, it's ridiculous that some families will prioritize corpse worship over saving lives, but it's their right to do so. Death does funny things to people, and until we can culturally move past corpse worship, we need to account for the wishes of families.
Of course, I'm of the mindset that the majority of people are reasonable about organ donation. I'm fairly certain it's only a small minority that has a real problem with it.
Of course, I'm of the mindset that the majority of people are reasonable about organ donation. I'm fairly certain it's only a small minority that has a real problem with it.
This is why I think we need to make it opt-out as opposed to opt-in. Furthermore, make it a pain in the ass to actually opt-out, and set the laws such that, if a person's opting status cannot be determined in a timely fashion and an organ is viable, a doctor can safely and legally assume that there was no opt-out.
Thus, the crazy can satisfy their desires while achieving the admirable goal of having a large pool of possible doners.
This is why I think we need to make it opt-out as opposed to opt-in.
Except that people will become opposed to it when you force it on them. Humans are funny like that. The social acceptance of the idea needs to preceded the adoption of the idea as practice.
Except that people will become opposed to it when you force it on them.
But not opposed enough to bother with the paperwork to opt-out most likely. And, once the news of the change and the uproar dies away, the default would be what most people did.
New York State has considered changing this several times, and I recall proponents citing evidence that the donor pool would be substantially increased by an opt-out system simply for the fact that most people don't care.
As long as there's a way to opt out rather than it being mandatory, I don't think the backlash would be especially huge. Plus, as Rym says, most people wouldn't bother to opt out, and so a great deal of good would be done. See this TED talk that I linked at the start of the thread; skip to about 5 minutes in if you just want to see the part about organs.
Personally, I feel that opting out is a dick move, and as well that religion should never be usable as an excuse to get out of any legal requirement for anything. But these are separate from the pragmatic idea of switching to an opt-out system.
Comments
BTW, your arguments, taken on by Scott, have all failed, suffice to say. ;/
Also, you have never successfullly argued that people's feelings don't matter. You just make conclusory statements to that effect, just like a religious person would do
What happens to their organs after a person dies can't affect that person, since that person is gone. However, the assurance that their body will be treated in some specific way can be valuable to that person while alive, and a system where we tell the person they will be treated how they wish and then ignore those wishes clearly cannot be sustained. So, to a limited extent, I can see why we would want to treat people's corpses as they wished them to be treated. Similarly, I am not indifferent to the feelings of the corpse's family. I won't dispute that some people/families care about the treatment of corpses, though I do think that they shouldn't care, and, in particular, they should definitely care a lot more about the good that could be done with the organs.
Though the feelings of people and their families about corpses do matter, we as a society should recognise that saving lives is much more important. Churba makes a good point when he says this: Personally, I see no moral issue with making organ donation mandatory, but from a pragmatic perspective Churba has a point. It may be (though I'm not convinced) that there would be too much social backlash for such a law to pass. If so, then it is an issue we need to work on socially and culturally for the moment.
However, if it is indeed the case that a law that makes it mandatory is not at all viable, that doesn't mean the law is fine as it is. At the very least, it would be better to have a system where people opt out rather than opt in, because quite a lot of people end up simply going along with whatever the de facto standard happens to be. A mere change from opt-in to opt-out would make a huge difference, and also help to change how people think about the issue.
Meanwhile, to those people in this thread who would refuse to donate their organs, given the choice - I want to know why.
Of course, I'm of the mindset that the majority of people are reasonable about organ donation. I'm fairly certain it's only a small minority that has a real problem with it.
Thus, the crazy can satisfy their desires while achieving the admirable goal of having a large pool of possible doners.
New York State has considered changing this several times, and I recall proponents citing evidence that the donor pool would be substantially increased by an opt-out system simply for the fact that most people don't care.
Personally, I feel that opting out is a dick move, and as well that religion should never be usable as an excuse to get out of any legal requirement for anything. But these are separate from the pragmatic idea of switching to an opt-out system.