To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).
Organ Donation
I just got done talking with someone upset about the talks to convert organ donation from opt-in to opt-out. In other words, right now people are assumed to not want to be organ donors, and have to go out of their way to become one. The new legislation would be the opposite.
I have to ask: how selfish do you have to be, to oppose this, hm? Now, I'm a libertarian. I propose more personal liberty and personal control than most people are comfortable with. But even I can see that that stops at death.
You think your body is sacred? Well, FU then. Seriously. I mean, as a society, could we please stop respecting these beliefs? How many times have I heard people wax on about their retarded views on the sanctity of the body and thought "that's illegal"?
Because, it is, you know. It is illegal to bury someone intact. They MUST be embalmed, by law. So. Those organs are coming out either way. The non-donor simply says "I would like my organs to be removed in such a fashion as they are useless to my fellow man, and will eventually be incinerated." And to that I simply say: "You're a jackass."
Civil liberties do no extend to the dead. A man may not cite his human rights to justify a wish that his body be prominently displayed in the town square, much less attack those who oppose this by saying that it's a part of his religious doctrine. We require corpses to be disposed of, either by cremation, burrial, or a very specific hermetic process like Walt Disney is (falsely) rumoured to have done. This is because corpses are a health risk. We say "no, I don't care what you want, you can't endanger people." How about we amend that statement to include the deliberate withholding of aid?
We already don't respect people's plans for their corpses, if those wishes don't run in line with our preception of the public good. I don't care if it necessitates the negation of religious wishes. If someone doesn't want their organs to help their fellow man, how about we call that person names, then take them anyway, hmm?
I have to ask: how selfish do you have to be, to oppose this, hm? Now, I'm a libertarian. I propose more personal liberty and personal control than most people are comfortable with. But even I can see that that stops at death.
You think your body is sacred? Well, FU then. Seriously. I mean, as a society, could we please stop respecting these beliefs? How many times have I heard people wax on about their retarded views on the sanctity of the body and thought "that's illegal"?
Because, it is, you know. It is illegal to bury someone intact. They MUST be embalmed, by law. So. Those organs are coming out either way. The non-donor simply says "I would like my organs to be removed in such a fashion as they are useless to my fellow man, and will eventually be incinerated." And to that I simply say: "You're a jackass."
Civil liberties do no extend to the dead. A man may not cite his human rights to justify a wish that his body be prominently displayed in the town square, much less attack those who oppose this by saying that it's a part of his religious doctrine. We require corpses to be disposed of, either by cremation, burrial, or a very specific hermetic process like Walt Disney is (falsely) rumoured to have done. This is because corpses are a health risk. We say "no, I don't care what you want, you can't endanger people." How about we amend that statement to include the deliberate withholding of aid?
We already don't respect people's plans for their corpses, if those wishes don't run in line with our preception of the public good. I don't care if it necessitates the negation of religious wishes. If someone doesn't want their organs to help their fellow man, how about we call that person names, then take them anyway, hmm?
Comments
I like my organs, they do me just fine. But I have nooo use for them once my brain clicks out and my heart stops beating. Just the fact that they can USE my organs is frigging amazing to me, and I'd be honored to have my liver (kidney, heart, whatever) that grew up with me, help someone to live their life. I think it's a fantastic thing!
I donate blood often (I'm on hiatus cuz I got a tattoo, but I'll be in there as soon as I've got the all-clear), and I just signed up to be a bone marrow donor. I think that's pretty damn amazing as well. I just spend an afternoon in a hospital and someone else gets a second chance at life. How is this bad?!
I didn't know that about the organ thing. Now it makes people seem even more idiotic for wanting to "stay whole" with all their guts. It's also frigging funny that people go through liposuction, breast implants, botox, etc etc etc so they look "good" when they are alive, but can't let some sick child have their spleen when they die.
They can have my organs when I go. I'm also going to donate my body to science, provided it doesn't end up on a cosmetic surgery floor.
Check out Stiff by Mary Roach. One of the most interesting and hilarious books I've ever read. If I didn't already share her views on life and death, it would've changed my mind!
:p
Thanks for the book reccomendation, Mal!
Call me selfish, i dont care.
If your organs fail on you, then you obviously weren't meant to live.
As to "meant to live," you've just said that you're against all of medical science. "If you get pneumonia, you obviously weren't meant to live. We'll not give you this serum."
Why shouldnt people be able to choose? My organs are in me right now, so therefore they are mine. And if i die, because they were mine, i should be able to decide what i want done with them. No one else should have the right to tell ME what to do with what was once mine. Thats no different than your parents leaving you money in their will and then someone comes along and says, "well, there are starving children in africa, so i think this money should go to them instead of to the children of the deceased here." You get my point im sure.
This statement makes NO sense whatsoever. We have modern medicine for a reason. By this theory, the hospitals would be empty.
What if your friend or family member needed one of your kidneys? Would you give it? Or are they meant to die?
The 20/20 thing is a little different....no one is giving up their eyes for another person to see. Right??
Giving up organs is completely different. No one should be able to tell me that i HAVE to give up my organs. You can do it if you please, but leave mine alone. They're not yours and you have no right to tell me what to do with them.
Ive said what i wanted to say. Continue with your pointless debate.
Good nite.
No one said you HAVE to give up your organs, the new regulation just means you'd need to opt out. But how is choosing to give them to a friend or family member while you are alive any different from saving someone else's life when you are dead?
No offense to organ donors, but that's the sad true.
i think i'm very lucky to be born healthy...as an organ donor.. i make sure i take good care of them so that when i die.. someone can make use of it.. yet i don't think a legislation is needed.. ultimately, i believe people should have the right to choose whether to donate or retain their organs..
all i have to say is when I die, people who need organs can pick whatever they want out my insides. unfortunately, it's not so cheerful as cherry-picking, but i'd like to think that when the day comes, i'll be able to save a life. and in a way, part of me will still be "alive" for a bit longer.
besides i'd have much more to worry about--like figuring out whether the afterlife exists.. :P
However, if i choose to not want to give my organs to anyone, i think that should be acceptable too. Honestly, as mean as it may sound, i just simply do not care to give my organs to anyone after i die. Thats as far as YOU are concerned, but those organs were/are still technically my "property". I think its disgusting to take organs like that. Those organs weren't meant for anyone else but me. It should be my choice as to whether i want someone else to have them or not. End of story.
If you want to give your organs to someone, go for it. I respect the decisions of those who decide to do that. And as such, people should respect my decision to not want to give mine to anyone. Simple as that.
So, I have a better understanding of when your organs are taken out...
If I died in a car accident, are my organs usuable after 1/2hr - 1hr later? Or do they have to be taken out within minutes after I died?
I'm no expert, so I can't answer your 1/2 hour - hour question. I don't think they could use them, though I could be wrong.
Anyways, I remember when I was little, there were these organ donor stickers that were mailed to all of the houses. You were suppose to stick one on your care card, so paramedics would know that you are an organ donor. I didn't know you were suppose to apply for this, I just saw the stickers on the table. I stuck one on my care card, thinking I was now an organ donor :smile: . But now I know it doesn't work that way.
http://www.scientek.net/hospital20.htm if you're interested in learning.
http://www.scientek.net/hospital20.htm if you're interested in learning.
(1) Most organs become useless when one dies. Organs are perishable and when not supported by a constant flow of blood simply rot. If you define dying as the cessation of all brain and heart activity, you will be left with few useful organs.
(2) There is a black market for organ donation. Those who donate are typically impoverished while those who receive from the black market are always well-off. If we raise legitimate organ donation, will the well-off simply not benefit more?
(3) If you're so adamant on maintaining the public good, why not kill healthy middle-aged people and give away their organs to the needy? Is that not in line with your reasoning? After all, we'd have way more organs this way and be able to benefit way more people (e.g. someone needs a kidney, someone else needs a lung, someone else needs a heart, someone else needs a spleen, that's at least four people you can benefit by killing only ONE person). Why don't we do that and "call that person names" who doesn't want to contribute because obviously we won't respect people's wishes if those wishes do not run in line with the public good?
Do you realize what sort of a slippery slope you'll be headed if choose to disregard autonomy? Do you realize what one can justify with your logic?
(4) What about family? If you won't respect a dead person's wishes, will you disrespect the wishes of the dead person's family too?
(5) What about ownership? Why does ownership end when one dies? If I die and my ownership automatically disappears for, say, some property, whose does it become once I die? The problem here is that any picking up of ownership upon a person's death is arbitrary! Why? Simply because one has no right to claim another's property when the other dies. On what basis would he do so? On the basis of that property no longer being used? If you say yes to that, then another person has an equally legitimate chance to claiming that property. Why shouldn't another person claim a dead person's property on the same basis. That won't cut it and neither will saying "civil liberties do not extend to the dead". The ony way to escape this arbitrariness is to assume that ownership extends even beyond death. It may be crude and cumbersome, but it is the only logical way.
On that note, I say respect freedom. Kudos to you if you want to donate, but one ought not to be rebuked if one chooses to respect what is essentially his own. That's that.