So this is weird that this discussion came up now, because I was just listening to an NHK report about the first organ transplant from a brain-dead person who was a minor. This had never occurred before, and the poor kid, who was a young teen, had been in a car accident and was in a permanent vegetative state. The parents finally decided to pull the plug, and the doctors asked them to think about donation of organs, and there was a very heartfelt segment where the father made a statement and said that his son wanted to help people when he grew up, and though his life was cut tragically short, he would be able to help lots of people even in death. In Japan, organ transplant is still kind of taboo. There's a thing about wanting to go to your death pure. This is beginning to change. I figure if they are going to burn my body up anyway, I want to give anything I can. That way I can be sure to be both completely dead and also helpful before I go into the cleansing fire. Hopefully I will be so old by the time I go that no one will want my body except for science stuff.
I'm just making the argument based on Rym's statements that the only value organs have is their monetary value. This doesn't reflect what I think about the value of either live or dead organs.
They have different values for different people. To the person who is dead, their organs are worth $0 because they don't even exist anymore. To their family they might be worth something for sentimental or religious reasons, but no other reason. To a medical school they are worth a lot as a practice cadaver. To a person who needs a new pancreas or a kidney, it's priceless. If we want to maximize overall benefit to society, make them be worth as much as possible. It's like, if you could choose how much something is worth, you should choose the maximum value.
I'm just making the argument based on Rym's statements that the only value organs have is their monetary value. This doesn't reflect what I think about the value of either live or dead organs.
They have different values for different people. To the person who is dead, their organs are worth $0 because they don't even exist anymore. To their family they might be worth something for sentimental or religious reasons, but no other reason. To a medical school they are worth a lot as a practice cadaver. To a person who needs a new pancreas or a kidney, it's priceless. If we want to maximize overall benefit to society, make them be worth as much as possible. It's like, if you could choose how much something is worth, you should choose the maximum value.
So, what's your opinion about making organ donation a part of criminal penalties? Shouldn't the evil murderer be forced to give one of his kidneys to the helpless, innocent child?
So, what's your opinion about making organ donation a part of criminal penalties? Shouldn't the evil murderer be forced to give one of his kidneys to the helpless, innocent child?
Well, the whole justice system is fucked up. It depends on whether or not you want to fix the justice system as a whole.
Right now we pay lip service to rehabilitation, but in reality we mostly just exploit, punish, and get revenge on convicted criminals. If you're just going to keep giving people the death penalty, life sentences, etc., then you might as well take their organs. You're not actually trying to rehabilitate these people. You've already taken their lives away. You might as well force them to give up their organs.
That being said, I think it would be much better if the entire justice system were fixed. We should actually try to rehabilitate people. In that case, we shouldn't take their organs since they are still using them, and they are going to become full members of society at some point in the future.
Short of fixing the entire justice system, I would like to see one realistic measure that could actually be implemented right now. All people in jails or prisons should be required to submit DNA to donor databases. Then if there is a match we can offer them some years off their sentence if they give up a kidney or whatever.
Right now we pay lip service to rehabilitation, but in reality we mostly just exploit, punish, and get revenge on convicted criminals. If you're just going to keep giving people the death penalty, life sentences, etc., then you might as well take their organs. You're not actually trying to rehabilitate these people. You've already taken their lives away. You might as well force them to give up their organs.
Yeah. I'd say that retributive justice is immoral, especially since we don't have contra-causal free will (indeed, the very concept is nonsensical). Do we need a new thread for that, or does no one want to defend retributive justice?
Yeah. I'd say that retributive justice is immoral, especially since we don't have contra-causal free will (indeed, the very concept is nonsensical). Do we need a new thread for that, or does no one want to defend retributive justice?
I'm pretty sure there already is a thread for that. Either way, talking about our shitty justice system is a tangent, so if someone wants to go on it, not in this thread. Keep this focused on giblets.
Yeah. I'd say that retributive justice is immoral, especially since we don't have contra-causal free will (indeed, the very concept is nonsensical). Do we need a new thread for that, or does no one want to defend retributive justice?
I'm pretty sure there already is a thread for that. Either way, talking about our shitty justice system is a tangent, so if someone wants to go on it, not in this thread. Keep this focused on giblets.
I don't think there's a thread on retributive justice in particular. If anyone (Joe, for example) wants to defend the concept, a new thread is likely in order.
The youth don't care nearly as much about their dead bodies as the old guys do.
Sonic is pretty youthful, and he seems to care what happens to his dead body.
Aren't these blanket statements about what youth wants/doesn't want really just statements about what Scrym wants/doesn't want?
Likely so. Nonetheless, why do you care what happens to your dead body?
Did I ever say I did?
Ok then. Why would anyone care what happens to their corpse?
I don't know. Why does anyone care about anything?
People care about different things for many different reasons. If someone really, really cares about a Dixon Ticonderoga No. 2 pencil, it doesn't matter to me, and I try not to treat them badly or call them names merely because they have this affection which seems weird to me.
it doesn't matter to me, and I try not to treat them badly or call them names merely because they have this affection which seems weird to me.
But I find it repugnant that a person would deny others lifesaving organs at no real cost to themselves. It's just an opinion that I don't think this should be an option.
People care about different things for many different reasons. If someone really, really cares about a Dixon Ticonderoga No. 2 pencil, it doesn't matter to me, and I try not to treat them badly or call them names merely because they have this affection which seems weird to me.
Yeah, that's fine. But saving lives outweighs your love of pencils. Pencil all you want, but if it gets in the way of saving lives pencils gotta go.
It's the old cliche of trying to leave a burning building with or without valuable possessions. Only this time you're already on fire, and you're grabbing someone else and preventing them from escaping.
But I find it repugnant that a person would deny others lifesaving organs at no real cost to themselves. It's just an opinion that I don't think this should be an option.
Part of having basic freedoms is accepting that people are going to do stupid things with those freedoms. I mean I have trouble getting some people I know to wear their god damn seatbelt. If people don't care about their own safety enough to wear a seatbelt, do you really think they give a fuck about some one else after they die?
But I find it repugnant that a person would deny others lifesaving organs at no real cost to themselves. It's just an opinion that I don't think this should be an option.
Part of having basic freedoms is accepting that people are going to do stupid things with those freedoms. I mean I have trouble getting some people I know to wear their god damn seatbelt. If people don't care about their own safety enough to wear a seatbelt, do you really think they give a fuck about some one else after they die?
Do whatever you want to your own safety. But once you are dead, you have no rights or freedoms anymore. Meanwhile these other people who are still alive have a right to life, so your organs are theirs now. Tough shit. One day we'll be able to grow organs for everybody and this won't be an issue. Until then.
Do whatever you want to your own safety. But once you are dead, you have no rights or freedoms anymore.
This is true, you're dead. But doesn't the family decide what happens with your body anyway? Even if you aren't listed as an organ donor, your family can give the go ahead after you die.
One thing that I have noticed through out this debate is the matter of who the organs go to. As a prelude I'm not talking race or sex (that shit should never come into account for organ donation), but the validation for the person having the organs. The conversation has sort of miss this point and jsut gotten lost in the bumff (look this word up it rocks) of morality and law. All of this is hypothetical, and in reality irelivent people cna say what they want its how They act that matters. Anyway I'm derailing here.
The matter of who the organs got to is a discussion my brother an I have all the time. I'm more than happy to give my organs to someone that was born with a disability or someone who damages their body in an accident. What I disagree with is people who get organs to replace the ones they screwed up. ( I don't have hard facts here the example I would use though would be George Best in the UK) As an example Scott you are dead, sorry, your lungs are lovely and nice and given to a 25 year old who's got a knackard pair. He knackard them from smoking a pack a day for the last ten years. Are you then comfortable having your organs go to someone who intentionally sporked them. I'm posing this question to you guys so that the debate doesn't become shit flinging and name calling.
This is true, you're dead. But doesn't the family decide what happens with your body anyway? Even if you aren't listed as an organ donor, your family can give the go ahead after you die.
The only issue there is time. The time it takes to get the families permission the organs could be unusable.
As an example Scott you are dead, sorry, your lungs are lovely and nice and given to a 25 year old who's got a knackard pair. He knackard them from smoking a pack a day for the last ten years.
Nothing would make me happier than Scott's lungs going to a smoker. Hell, if I ever get my thoracic cavity around Scott's lungs, I'll start smoking again just out of spite.
As an example Scott you are dead, sorry, your lungs are lovely and nice and given to a 25 year old who's got a knackard pair. He knackard them from smoking a pack a day for the last ten years.
Nothing would make me happier than Scott's lungs going to a smoker. Hell, if I ever get my thoracic cavity around Scott's lungs, I'll start smoking again just out of spite.
If I had my way any self inflicted medical condition would not be covered by public insurance. It also would not be required for private insurance to cover self inflicted conditions. Thus, you wouldn't get my lung since it belongs to the government it would go to someone being covered by public insurance. You would have to pay for everything out of your own wallet, and find a lung on some other open market.
If I had my way any self inflicted medical condition would not be covered by public insurance. It also would not be required for private insurance to cover self inflicted conditions. Thus, you wouldn't get my lung since it belongs to the government it would go to someone being covered by public insurance. You would have to pay for everything out of your own wallet, and find a lung on some other open market.
That's a pretty damn hard claim to make.. I could legalistically argue most things are not self-inflicted if we wanted to go down that route.
(without resorting to no free will arguments either :-p)
As an example Scott you are dead, sorry, your lungs are lovely and nice and given to a 25 year old who's got a knackard pair. He knackard them from smoking a pack a day for the last ten years.
Nothing would make me happier than Scott's lungs going to a smoker. Hell, if I ever get my thoracic cavity around Scott's lungs, I'll start smoking again just out of spite.
If I had my way any self inflicted medical condition would not be covered by public insurance. It also would not be required for private insurance to cover self inflicted conditions. Thus, you wouldn't get my lung since it belongs to the government it would go to someone being covered by public insurance. You would have to pay for everything out of your own wallet, and find a lung on some other open market.
For your lungs, I would hire a Mission Impossible team to steal them.
If I had my way any self inflicted medical condition would not be covered by public insurance. It also would not be required for private insurance to cover self inflicted conditions. Thus, you wouldn't get my lung since it belongs to the government it would go to someone being covered by public insurance. You would have to pay for everything out of your own wallet, and find a lung on some other open market.
That's a pretty damn hard claim to make.. I could legalistically argue most things are not self-inflicted if we wanted to go down that route.
(without resorting to no free will arguments either :-p)
Yeah, I think Scott's being kind of a dick on this point. He needs to back up his position.
Comments
I figure if they are going to burn my body up anyway, I want to give anything I can. That way I can be sure to be both completely dead and also helpful before I go into the cleansing fire.
Hopefully I will be so old by the time I go that no one will want my body except for science stuff.
Right now we pay lip service to rehabilitation, but in reality we mostly just exploit, punish, and get revenge on convicted criminals. If you're just going to keep giving people the death penalty, life sentences, etc., then you might as well take their organs. You're not actually trying to rehabilitate these people. You've already taken their lives away. You might as well force them to give up their organs.
That being said, I think it would be much better if the entire justice system were fixed. We should actually try to rehabilitate people. In that case, we shouldn't take their organs since they are still using them, and they are going to become full members of society at some point in the future.
Short of fixing the entire justice system, I would like to see one realistic measure that could actually be implemented right now. All people in jails or prisons should be required to submit DNA to donor databases. Then if there is a match we can offer them some years off their sentence if they give up a kidney or whatever.
Aren't these blanket statements about what youth wants/doesn't want really just statements about what Scrym wants/doesn't want?
People care about different things for many different reasons. If someone really, really cares about a Dixon Ticonderoga No. 2 pencil, it doesn't matter to me, and I try not to treat them badly or call them names merely because they have this affection which seems weird to me.
It's the old cliche of trying to leave a burning building with or without valuable possessions. Only this time you're already on fire, and you're grabbing someone else and preventing them from escaping.
The matter of who the organs got to is a discussion my brother an I have all the time. I'm more than happy to give my organs to someone that was born with a disability or someone who damages their body in an accident. What I disagree with is people who get organs to replace the ones they screwed up. ( I don't have hard facts here the example I would use though would be George Best in the UK) As an example Scott you are dead, sorry, your lungs are lovely and nice and given to a 25 year old who's got a knackard pair. He knackard them from smoking a pack a day for the last ten years. Are you then comfortable having your organs go to someone who intentionally sporked them. I'm posing this question to you guys so that the debate doesn't become shit flinging and name calling.
(without resorting to no free will arguments either :-p)
Get used to it. Your lungs are mine.