The problem is that circumstances don't, and until they do, people are going to be opposed to it.
But are YOU opposed to it. Certainly there are many factors that come into play when deciding if/when to transplant an organ. Do you think the deceased or their family should play any part in that decision?
I've answered this question several times now. Try reading what I've written.
But I'll re-iterate since you seem to be missing it:
IF the practices to determine death can guarantee that a person is truly irreversibly dead before organs are harvested, THEN I support mandatory organ donation. "Mandatory" means "nobody gets to say 'no.'" The only one who would be able to decide whether or not the organs were viable would be the doctor.
I would also support an opt-out program, to account for religious convictions. Also, I'd want to make sure that people were adequately sewn back together to allow for open-casket funerals.
I might think those two things are stupid, but I can't in good conscience deny those rights to the living.
I would also support an opt-out program, to account for religious convictions. Also, I'd want to make sure that people were adequately sewn back together to allow for open-casket funerals.
I might think those two things are stupid, but I can't in good conscience deny those rights to the living.
I can absolutely deny those things to the living. It's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in that order. Extend life by making someone unhappy? Yes every time. There should be no opting out. There should be no more cemetaries.
How does this effect Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?
Funerals are part of the pursuit of happiness. A ritual that the living do to help get over their grief and move on with the happiness in their lives. Also, there's the liberty to have a funeral if you want. "Why are you doing that?" "Because I can and I want to. Fuck off."
I think cemeteries are dumb. I think open-casket funerals are dumb. Some people don't, though. Some people need that closure to be functional, and their lives would be impaired otherwise.
I would love for us to get to the point where everyone thinks that funerals and caskets are dumb, but until we're there, I can't justify telling people not to do it.
I've never considered that to be a de-facto order of priority. What about "give me liberty or give me death?"
That's when you sacrifice your own life for your own lack of liberty. This is talking about sacrificing a stranger's happiness or liberty for the life of another stranger.
How does this effect Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?
It doesn't, it's just an addendum.
For all the people who think opting out should be an option, I have a new job for you. Little Timmy needs a heart transplant. He almost had one, but it was in a religious person. Apparently, it was more important to respect the religious rights of that dude that give the heart to little Timmy. You have to go to the hospital and tell little Timmy and his family that he's going to die because it was more important that we let some people conduct some funky old rituals than for him to get the organ he needs.
There are a great many reasons to, or not to, perform an organ transplant. The wishes and desires of the corpse and its family should NEVER be one of those reasons.
You have to go to the hospital and tell little Timmy and his family that he's going to die because it was more important that we let some people conduct some funky old rituals than for him to get the organ he needs.
The odds are that little Timmy's parents are also religious, and could understand the decision not to donate.
You also don't tell people "Well, we had a heart lined up, but the guy decided to be a douche." That violates doctor-patient confidentiality and helps undermine the whole system.
And the medical fiction of "we need an organ from this guy right here for this kid right here doesn't really happen. Your situation is so contrived that it's simply not useful for discussion.
You also don't tell people "Well, we had a heart lined up, but the guy decided to be a douche." That violates doctor-patient confidentiality and helps undermine the whole system.
Remember, I don't believe in privacy either.
The odds are that little Timmy's parents are also religious, and could understand the decision not to donate.
Then that's their decision to make. If people don't want to accept an organ, I have no problem with that. Let the potential donor ask them nicely not to take it.
And the medical fiction of "we need an organ from this guy right here for this kid right here doesn't really happen. Your situation is so contrived that it's simply not useful for discussion.
Obviously its an incredibly rare occurrence. That doesn't make it any less wrong. Oh yeah, there this really horrible thing, but it's so incredibly rare that it's ok. If there were only one murder every 10,000 years it would still be just as wrong.
Yeah, and it's really fucking stupid to apply it here.
Obviously its an incredibly rare occurrence.
No, I mean it doesn't fucking happen. You need an organ, you go to an organ bank, where they have complete medical histories and all that other stuff that you absolutely need to know before you can do an organ transplant. You do not go to a patient and say, "We need your heart to save Timmy." That is literally medical fiction.
No, I mean it doesn't fucking happen. You need an organ, you go to an organ bank, where they have complete medical histories and all that other stuff that you absolutely need to know before you can do an organ transplant. You do not go to a patient and say, "We need your heart to save Timmy." That is literally medical fiction.
Obviously, but the same thing happens effectively. Timmy is on the list at the organ bank, and it never receives a suitable organ then he dies. Unbeknownst to Timmy, there was a suitable organ. It was buried somewhere for no good reason.
You can't seem to understand that, in your highly contrived hypotheticals, you assume away the thing that nearly everyone in the world agrees on. You always say in these hypotheticals that the decedent's and the decedent's family's wishes don't matter. Most people believe they do matter. Just because YOU disagree doesn't mean that you are right.
Most people want to be free to make their own decisions and they respect the rights of others to make their own decisions. Your morality seems primarily concerned with taking away freedoms you don't like.
That's really it, in the end, isn't it? You just want an absolute dictatorship work you as dictator.
Just because YOU disagree doesn't mean that you are right.
Most people want to be free to make their own decisions and they respect the rights of others to make their own decisions. Your morality seems primarily concerned with taking away freedoms you don't like.
I'm not saying that I am right. There is no right and wrong when it comes to morality. It's all relative. I'm just saying what I personally believe is right. I'm also saying why I believe those things. I'm asking others to do the same. To say what they believe is right and also to explain the reasons for their beliefs. Some of you have said what your beliefs are, but few of you have been able to provide any reasons.
Why should we respect the wishes of a dead person? Why should we respect the wishes of a dead person's family?
Why should we respect the wishes of a dead person's family?
We do; it's just that getting the organs to those who need them matters more.
FTFY
There's no such thing as should or shouldn't. Human rights is a made up concept to keep people alive/happy and society sane.
My earlier post, I wasn't asking whether those things were true in law but in fact. As in, what is the logical (not practical) reasoning behind ownership of a relative's corpse?
As in, what is the logical (not practical) reasoning behind ownership of a relative's corpse?
Ah, that's pretty much it. Your body is your property, and the rights to your property pass to whom you nominate, or failing nomination, your next of kin.
There's no such thing as should or shouldn't. Human rights is a made up concept to keep people alive/happy and society sane.
I don't agree with the idea of inalienable human rights, but human rights are at least a useful concept. However, the word "should" does, in fact, mean something.
There's no such thing as should or shouldn't. Human rights is a made up concept to keep people alive/happy and society sane.
I don't agree with the idea of inalienable human rights, but the word "should" does, in fact, mean something.
In a limited sense, maybe, but in the end it's a construct we impose on our world to make sense of it, no?
As in, what is the logical (not practical) reasoning behind ownership of a relative's corpse?
Ah, that's pretty much it. Your body is your property, and the rights to your property pass to whom you nominate, or failing nomination, your next of kin.
Because originally one's property went back to the rest of the tribe, but as tribes broke down into family groups, so to with it went inheritance to the blood family, though contributions to the rest of the tribe beside the family varies from culture to culture. This continued on and has been refined by many cultures, but it is oddly something that carries on in nearly all cultures - it was even practiced by Australian Aborigines, after a fashion, in the way they considered property - and they were isolated from other cultures for nearly 40,000 years. We've turned this combination between tradition and evolutionary strategy into a law, and now, when one dies, one's heirs inherit their property from life, which includes one's body, which is the one possession one owns in the most absolute sense.
Because originally one's property went back to the rest of the tribe, but as tribes broke down into family groups, so to with it went inheritance to the blood family, though contributions to the rest of the tribe beside the family varies from culture to culture. This continued on and has been refined by many cultures, but it is oddly something that carries on in nearly all cultures - it was even practiced by Australian Aborigines, after a fashion, in the way they considered property - and they were isolated from other cultures for nearly 40,000 years. We've turned this combination between tradition and evolutionary strategy into a law, and now, when one dies, one's heirs inherit their property from life, which includes one's body, which is the one possession one owns in the most absolute sense.
That's why it has been done. We all know that. Why should we still do it?
That's why it has been done. We all know that. Why should we still do it?
If you pair want to play the Why game, I should warn you, I have a 4 year old goddaughter, I've vastly more experience at this than you think. ;^)
That aside, we do so because we as a society consider it moral, both to respect the wishes of the person whose property it was who, generally, decide to do these things before they die, while it is still their property and they have every right to decide what to do with it, and to give all of this to the people who are related to the person - you're forgetting, of course, that not only does property pass to the next of kin, but so to do debts(From which property is generally sold to cover), certain obligations, costs of disposing of the body, and so on. As to Why as a society consider it moral, I cannot say myself. Not my place, nor within my sphere of knowledge, you'd have to go find that out on your own.
We as a society also consider saving lives to be moral, and, I'd hope, more important than our handling of corpses.
I'd hope so to. But that isn't what was asked.
Actually that was in some sense what I was asking. Why? As in, why today, knowing what we know, do we still deem "tradition" so important? Why is ownership of a relative's corpse within the "rights" of the family? Do you agree with those societal positions? (Putting tradition and rights in quotes because my mind has been polluted by Foucault.)
you're forgetting, of course, that not only does property pass to the next of kin, but so to do debts(From which property is generally sold to cover), certain obligations, costs of disposing of the body, and so on.
Actually that was in some sense what I was asking. Why? As in, why today, knowing what we know, do we still deem "tradition" so important? Why is ownership of a relative's corpse within the "rights" of the family? Do you agree with those societal positions? (Putting tradition and rights in quotes because my mind has been polluted by Foucault.)
Then you need a more complex question than just a single why. I'm not a mind reader.
We deem tradition to be a ritual or belief passed down through society, such as religion, holidays, celebration of historical events, celebrating birthdays, meaningful clothes such as a judge's wig, officer's sabre or spurs, and so on. We consider it so important because it is a form of history - and of course, without remembering our history, we'd hardly be better of than we were when coming down out of the trees seemed like a pretty revolutionary idea. In this case, it's a tradition which arose from a cultural adaption to improving one's odds for survival, which in turn arose from basically if someone dies, whoever gets their hands on their stuff first gets to keep it - because more furs, for example, at your disposal better enables you to keep your family warm in the winter, so that they don't die, and in turn, your bloodline does not die out.
We've been doing this for a very, very fucking long time, in other words, and it's something which is a part of most societies and cultures, even - as mentioned - Australian Aboriginies, who were isolated from most other cultures for over 40,000 years.
Is this why?
Well, in part, yes, if you want to move to the practical reasons we carry it on - there is a lot more to death than you might assume.
Now, here's a lot of the reason, in the right here and now - If it does not pass to the family, then who should it pass to, remembering that of course, all debts incurred by the person are passed on to the family, as is the cost of disposing of the body(Irrelevant of if organs are taken or not), any taxes on said property, plus in most places, that inheritance is taxed in some fashion. So, if we absolutely eliminate inheritance, then that means that all debts incurred by the person are null and void, and whoever those debts were incurred towards is basically fucked - Grandma runs up multiple hundred thousands of credit card bills, and takes massive cash loans from the bank? She's not going to pay those. Suicidal people could trivially do the same, along with taking out massive cash loans from the bank, pass them on to people before they commit suicide, and it's essentially free money. Most property people own is essentially of little if any value, if it can be sold at all - So, who pays the cost for getting rid of it, or disposing of it? The government? That's some bullshit there - why should your tax dollars go to getting rid of all the detritus left behind by some dead guy, when the family, who often place immense value in many of these things and will pay the disposal costs for getting rid of what is useless or can't be sold, as well as the cost of selling what can be sold, are perfectly willing to take on all of that?
Who - assuming the person owns real estate - pays the property taxes on what is now unowned property, as well as the cost of services used in the time before death? Who has the right to sell it? Does it revert to the government or the crown in that case? In that case, why should tax dollars go towards the upkeep and/or sale of that property? Wouldn't all these problems rapidly crash the real estate market, which would have a pretty large effect on the economy? Why should we do this when the family is already willing - under the system of inheritance we currently use - to pay all these costs and administer either the sale of the property, or take over occupation of said property and said costs incurred?
And let's fact it, your tax dollars will be worth fuck all, since you can bet dollars to donuts that every terminally ill person, old person, or suicide case is going to simply take out enormous loans from everywhere possible, because fuck it, they don't have to pay it back, thereby most likely causing another massive crash in the US economy.
Also, after the organs are gone, whose job is it to pay for disposing of the body, which is now essentially biohazardous waste? The government? Why should your tax dollars go to the disposal of biohazard waste, usually biohazard waste which is expensive to get rid of - generally by incinerating it, which is expensive, but still the most cost effective method - along with storage, transport, and supervision of said biohazardous waste, which must be done within certain standards laid down by the government, and is generally extremely expensive on that scale. And why should this be the case, when families are already willing to dispose of the body and cover the costs of doing so?
We still carry on the tradition of inheritance mostly at this point because to remove it would cause many more problems than it solves, which would adversely and unfairly affect many more people than keeping it would, as well as pretty much condemning the economy to another massive, massive crash, which will be much harder to recover from than the crash that America is currently recovering from.
That aside, we do so because we as a society consider it moral, both to respect the wishes of the person whose property it was who, generally, decide to do these things before they die, while it is still their property and they have every right to decide what to do with it, and to give all of this to the people who are related to the person - you're forgetting, of course, that not only does property pass to the next of kin, but so to do debts(From which property is generally sold to cover), certain obligations, costs of disposing of the body, and so on. As to Why as a society consider it moral, I cannot say myself. Not my place, nor within my sphere of knowledge, you'd have to go find that out on your own.
I don't care about society. I know what "society" thinks. We all do. What do YOU think. If you were king of the world, would it be that way?
Comments
But I'll re-iterate since you seem to be missing it:
IF the practices to determine death can guarantee that a person is truly irreversibly dead before organs are harvested, THEN I support mandatory organ donation. "Mandatory" means "nobody gets to say 'no.'" The only one who would be able to decide whether or not the organs were viable would be the doctor.
I would also support an opt-out program, to account for religious convictions. Also, I'd want to make sure that people were adequately sewn back together to allow for open-casket funerals.
I might think those two things are stupid, but I can't in good conscience deny those rights to the living.
I think cemeteries are dumb. I think open-casket funerals are dumb. Some people don't, though. Some people need that closure to be functional, and their lives would be impaired otherwise.
I would love for us to get to the point where everyone thinks that funerals and caskets are dumb, but until we're there, I can't justify telling people not to do it.
For all the people who think opting out should be an option, I have a new job for you. Little Timmy needs a heart transplant. He almost had one, but it was in a religious person. Apparently, it was more important to respect the religious rights of that dude that give the heart to little Timmy. You have to go to the hospital and tell little Timmy and his family that he's going to die because it was more important that we let some people conduct some funky old rituals than for him to get the organ he needs.
There are a great many reasons to, or not to, perform an organ transplant. The wishes and desires of the corpse and its family should NEVER be one of those reasons.
You also don't tell people "Well, we had a heart lined up, but the guy decided to be a douche." That violates doctor-patient confidentiality and helps undermine the whole system.
And the medical fiction of "we need an organ from this guy right here for this kid right here doesn't really happen. Your situation is so contrived that it's simply not useful for discussion.
Most people want to be free to make their own decisions and they respect the rights of others to make their own decisions. Your morality seems primarily concerned with taking away freedoms you don't like.
That's really it, in the end, isn't it? You just want an absolute dictatorship work you as dictator.
Why should we respect the wishes of a dead person? Why should we respect the wishes of a dead person's family?
There's no such thing as should or shouldn't. Human rights is a made up concept to keep people alive/happy and society sane.
My earlier post, I wasn't asking whether those things were true in law but in fact. As in, what is the logical (not practical) reasoning behind ownership of a relative's corpse?
That aside, we do so because we as a society consider it moral, both to respect the wishes of the person whose property it was who, generally, decide to do these things before they die, while it is still their property and they have every right to decide what to do with it, and to give all of this to the people who are related to the person - you're forgetting, of course, that not only does property pass to the next of kin, but so to do debts(From which property is generally sold to cover), certain obligations, costs of disposing of the body, and so on.
As to Why as a society consider it moral, I cannot say myself. Not my place, nor within my sphere of knowledge, you'd have to go find that out on your own.
We deem tradition to be a ritual or belief passed down through society, such as religion, holidays, celebration of historical events, celebrating birthdays, meaningful clothes such as a judge's wig, officer's sabre or spurs, and so on. We consider it so important because it is a form of history - and of course, without remembering our history, we'd hardly be better of than we were when coming down out of the trees seemed like a pretty revolutionary idea. In this case, it's a tradition which arose from a cultural adaption to improving one's odds for survival, which in turn arose from basically if someone dies, whoever gets their hands on their stuff first gets to keep it - because more furs, for example, at your disposal better enables you to keep your family warm in the winter, so that they don't die, and in turn, your bloodline does not die out.
We've been doing this for a very, very fucking long time, in other words, and it's something which is a part of most societies and cultures, even - as mentioned - Australian Aboriginies, who were isolated from most other cultures for over 40,000 years. Well, in part, yes, if you want to move to the practical reasons we carry it on - there is a lot more to death than you might assume.
Now, here's a lot of the reason, in the right here and now - If it does not pass to the family, then who should it pass to, remembering that of course, all debts incurred by the person are passed on to the family, as is the cost of disposing of the body(Irrelevant of if organs are taken or not), any taxes on said property, plus in most places, that inheritance is taxed in some fashion. So, if we absolutely eliminate inheritance, then that means that all debts incurred by the person are null and void, and whoever those debts were incurred towards is basically fucked - Grandma runs up multiple hundred thousands of credit card bills, and takes massive cash loans from the bank? She's not going to pay those. Suicidal people could trivially do the same, along with taking out massive cash loans from the bank, pass them on to people before they commit suicide, and it's essentially free money. Most property people own is essentially of little if any value, if it can be sold at all - So, who pays the cost for getting rid of it, or disposing of it? The government? That's some bullshit there - why should your tax dollars go to getting rid of all the detritus left behind by some dead guy, when the family, who often place immense value in many of these things and will pay the disposal costs for getting rid of what is useless or can't be sold, as well as the cost of selling what can be sold, are perfectly willing to take on all of that?
Who - assuming the person owns real estate - pays the property taxes on what is now unowned property, as well as the cost of services used in the time before death? Who has the right to sell it? Does it revert to the government or the crown in that case? In that case, why should tax dollars go towards the upkeep and/or sale of that property? Wouldn't all these problems rapidly crash the real estate market, which would have a pretty large effect on the economy? Why should we do this when the family is already willing - under the system of inheritance we currently use - to pay all these costs and administer either the sale of the property, or take over occupation of said property and said costs incurred?
And let's fact it, your tax dollars will be worth fuck all, since you can bet dollars to donuts that every terminally ill person, old person, or suicide case is going to simply take out enormous loans from everywhere possible, because fuck it, they don't have to pay it back, thereby most likely causing another massive crash in the US economy.
Also, after the organs are gone, whose job is it to pay for disposing of the body, which is now essentially biohazardous waste? The government? Why should your tax dollars go to the disposal of biohazard waste, usually biohazard waste which is expensive to get rid of - generally by incinerating it, which is expensive, but still the most cost effective method - along with storage, transport, and supervision of said biohazardous waste, which must be done within certain standards laid down by the government, and is generally extremely expensive on that scale. And why should this be the case, when families are already willing to dispose of the body and cover the costs of doing so?
We still carry on the tradition of inheritance mostly at this point because to remove it would cause many more problems than it solves, which would adversely and unfairly affect many more people than keeping it would, as well as pretty much condemning the economy to another massive, massive crash, which will be much harder to recover from than the crash that America is currently recovering from.