Organ Donation

[Calin Leafshade]

But why does it matter to whom it goes?

I think people are missing the fact that they are DEAD. It doesnt matter, you dont need your organs.

Isnt it spiteful to say "well you dont fit my criteria so I am not going to give you the thing that will save your life, i'm going to bury it in the ground instead. HA!"

surely saving someones life transcends those kinds of grievances

[NsMn]

So, Calin, please tell us why we didn't stomp in our graveyards yet? After all, those guys are all dead as well.

[Calin Leafshade]

Well from my personal perspective I wouldnt mind what you did on my grave. Im dead, I wouldnt know.

But more generally, I dont really understand the point of your question. Im not suggesting you dress the corpses up in clown costumes and have a tea party with them. I'm just saying what sense does it make to bury stuff in the ground that can essentially save 4 peoples lives just so they can rot.

I'll be honest, it does make me a tiny bit uncomfortable to know they are going to cut me up and give my organs to other people.. but frankly, suck it up! I can handle a bit of discomfort for the sake of saving 4 peoples lives.

It not even like you have to do anything. Just sign up, thats it. You dont have to go have have tests or anything.. all you need to do is die, which you were kinda going to do anyway.

[Misj']

I think people are missing the fact that they are DEAD. It doesnt matter, you dont need your organs.

So you don't care what happens to the stuff you obtained during your lifetime (I've got dibs on his computer)? - You don't think it should be inherited by those whom you consider 'right for the job'? - If society feels it needs it they may have it. It won't matter to you, since you're dead...you don't need it. Let the state, church, annoying neighbour take it all (except for that computer...that's mine)!

But why does it matter to whom it goes?

If it's my heritage (and it is!), than I should also have a say in who inherits it.

Isnt it spiteful to say "well you dont fit my criteria so I am not going to give you the thing that will save your life, i'm going to bury it in the ground instead. HA!"

No (although there was not 'HA!' in my sentence, it would have been 'sorry!'). It is your decision that you don't want to live up to my standards (or better than that). That's all up to...as long as you accept the consequences. And one of the consequences may be that you have given me no sign that I should consider your life worthy (of living). Why should I support/save such a life? - That would be a waste of my organs.

[Calin Leafshade]

Why should I support/save such a life? - That would be a waste of my organs.

If you believe that saving a life is a waste of something you were going to throw away anyway then I have no more to say to you on the matter. I cant argue against that point.

[Bulbapuck]

Organ doning ey?...

Nah, it would feel too cruel to take away food from the worms.

EDIT: POST NUMBER 300!!!!!!!!!!!! .......... I wish it had been something cooler.

[Misj']

Why should I support/save such a life? - That would be a waste of my organs.

If you believe that saving a life is a waste of something you were going to throw away anyway then I have no more to say to you on the matter. I cant argue against that point.

SO you believe that every life is worth saving?

For the sake of argument, if the four people you saved would be rapists - again for the sake of the argument - would you consider that a good cause for your organs? - You're saving 4 lives.



EDIT: Yes, it's an exaggerated example. But I feel it's equally valid for a less severe 'disagreement' in lifestyle. There are people whom I would give my organs in a hearts beat...but that doesn't mean that just anyone can  'claim' them.

[Calin Leafshade]

thats a pretty unlikely situation but yes I'd rather save their lives than let them die.

To rephrase the question, Do you think the police should intervene if a gang of youths were beating up a rapist?

Just because someone has done something terrible doesnt mean we should abandon them.

Also just because there is a possibility of your organs saving 4 rapists doesnt mean you should refuse outright.

Theres a chance that every single person in hospital are rapists, it doesnt mean the doctors dont treat any of them just incase they treat a rapist.

The choice is simple:

Either offer your organs and save 4 lives, all of which are potentially rapists,

or dont offer your organs and save no ones life.

I dont see how the second choice is preferable by any measure.

[Misj']

Either offer your organs and save 4 lives, all of which are potentially rapists,

or dont offer your organs and save no ones life.

I dont see how the second choice is preferable by any measure.

Though 'rapists' was of course an exaggerated example (for clarity I've edited the previous post). It is obvious that we disagree on this.

In my opinion you consider the 'gift of life' so worthless that everyone should give it away for free. I consider the 'gift of life' to be something so important that it there are strings attached, and those strings have their consequences.

ps. So you also think the state should force a certain lifestyle unto you if it saves you (any many more than 4 people)? - If they do they (may) save many people, if they don't they save no one. So that would makte the latter choice equally unpreferable (by any measure), wouldn't it?

[Jim Reed]

Well, if I get this right (prolly don't) Calin, you say we should save all people including rapists, right?

Sure why not allow rape to go un punished, as it leads to more children (life is something of value, isn't it?), and potentially MORE organs! Yay!

[Darth Mandarb]

I am an organ donor (but I'm keeping my piano).

I figure it's the last gracious thing I can do when I join the dearly, or not so dearly, departed.

Would I prefer that my organ(s) go to somebody I would have, in life, considered "worthy" of the donation?  Sure.

But considering that I'll be nothing but a [hopefully fond] memory and worm food (and will have no idea where they end up or how they were used) I suppose it doesn't really matter to me.

And if there is something "after" ... well I suppose a gracious gift of my guts might earn me some make-up points for my life of sin.

[Misj']

I dont see how the second choice is preferable by any measure.

all kinds of stuff that I've said

Oh Calin, just for the record, I understand your position on this, and I fully respect that position, and in general I have a great respect of the choice to become an organ donor. I just don't agree that just because I'm dead I shouldn't care what happens to me (or my stuff, or organs).

However, my initial post - and most of what I've written since - concerns not organ donation in general but those organ donors who became organ donors without any criteria for the recipient, and than start to claim that only those who are organ donors themselves are worth of their organs (hence suddenly demanding criteria).

Ps. And I've now got dibs on Darth's piano

[Khris]

Jim Reed: Your argument isn't worth the paper it's never gonna get printed on.
You know perfectly well that Calin doesn't want rapists to go on raping unpunished.
Saving someone from certain death isn't the same as not punishing them for bad behavior. If all you can do is bring forth bullshit non sequiturs, please shut up.

In reality, some donated organs will end up in bad people, and I can understand not wanting to leave one's liver to a gangbanger who got it shot to pieces.
The thing is that we can't decide who gets what because we are already dead at the time we'd have to.
I'm not sure how the waiting lists work in Germany or where ever else; I sure wouldn't like some Mafia boss buying his way up front.
On the upside though, there's a good chance that a donated organ will end up in a very nice, very grateful person.

It does make sense that the recipient of the organ is selected by 'bureaucracy' and not individual people; in such matters of life and death; silly holdups because the dead person didn't want a smoker to get his lung would only cost lives at the benefit of the dead person's ego.

Misj':
Who said that? I don't want to read the whole thread again.

[Intense Degree]

SO you believe that every life is worth saving?

For the sake of argument, if the four people you saved would be rapists - again for the sake of the argument - would you consider that a good cause for your organs? - You're saving 4 lives.

I'm with the Leafshade boy here!

Obviously I don't want to condone rapists etc. but I (personally) am not happy to judge whether they should live or die. I don't say that they shouldn't be judged in some way (i.e. in court) and imprisoned or punished as necessary, but I can't take upon myself the judging of whether they should be allowed to live.

Now I wish to make very clear that I am not suggesting that what you are suggesting is "killing" people, because it isn't. However if you (generally, not personally) select the sort of person who can receive your organs you are (in my opinion - which you may well disagree with) judging a certain type of person, without of course knowing them personally, and refusing them assistance that you would give to others. I don't intend this to be taken to the extreme of someone dangling off a cliff and you choosing whether or not to hall them back to safety, but my point is that for people who don't meet your standard of living (too lazy to quote your exact words ), to rule out helping them as a point of policy is too tough a call to make for me.

Personal opinion respected nonetheless!

[Misj']

Misj':
Who said that? I don't want to read the whole thread again.

Eh...What exactly?

If this refers to the rapists...that was me (initially) as an extreme (way over the top) example. I didn't care whether Calin wants to 'save rapists' (I didn't nor do think that was his position), I just wanted to know how 'far' he would go with his position. I now think I know: Calin thinks that even though some of 'the wrong' people may be saved that's worth the effort because it will also save a lot of 'the right' people. And thus saving people (in general) is better than not to save them at all (if I've misrepresented Calin's opinion here he should correct me).

If it refers to organ donors who proclaim that only those who are organ donors themselves have the right to be organ recipients as well...that wasn't said throughout this thread (as far as I've read), but it is a current discussion in the Netherlands, where people are currently lobbying that such a law should be enforced. So it wasn't a direct reaction to anyone here (although it was vaguely related to Indyboy's post here), but my general concern regarding this topic.

[Matti]

I now think I know: Calin thinks that even though some of 'the wrong' people may be saved that's worth the effort because it will also save a lot of 'the right' people. And thus saving people (in general) is better than not to save them at all (if I've misrepresented Calin's opinion here he should correct me).

I think you do indeed. Calin said he would save the lives of the rapists rather then let them die, and I would generally do the same unless they want to die (which - unfortunately - is against the law).

thats a pretty unlikely situation but yes I'd rather save their lives than let them die.

[Haddas]

Well, if I get this right (prolly don't) Calin, you say we should save all people including rapists, right?

Sure why not allow rape to go un punished, as it leads to more children (life is something of value, isn't it?), and potentially MORE organs! Yay!

[Jim Reed]

Kris, my post was rather sarcastic, don't you go punce on it, please. =D

Anyway, donating organs is a matter of personall opinion, and why would the state make the opinion for us? (the opt-out system). It's my organs I can do with them whatever I want, now.  And the state should leve me be when I die, if I don't tell them otherwise.

[Calin Leafshade]

Frankly I would donate my organs even if i KNEW they would go to save the life of bad people.

To withhold life saving treatment based on previous wrong doings is a slippery slope.

But my point still holds. It is better to save the life of 4 people (who are potentially rapists) than to save the life of no one

However I also agree with Misj' in that organ donation should not be limited to other organ donors. I believe in healthcare for all and organ donation counts as healthcare.

However, organs should be rationed to those who are ill at no fault of their own since there is a shortage.
Again I'll reiterate the fact that organs are NOT given to people who fucked up their first set of organs unless that person has shown that they have changed significantly (and the list of things you have to do is a fucking long list)

Well, if I get this right (prolly don't) Calin, you say we should save all people including rapists, right?

Sure why not allow rape to go un punished, as it leads to more children (life is something of value, isn't it?), and potentially MORE organs! Yay!

At which point does the first statement connect to the second?

We should not let rapists (or any prisoners) die so therefore we shouldnt punish them? Connect the dots for me.

EDIT for jim:

Kris, my post was rather sarcastic, don't you go punce on it, please. =D

ok fine.

Anyway, donating organs is a matter of personall opinion, and why would the state make the opinion for us? (the opt-out system). It's my organs I can do with them whatever I want, now.  And the state should leve me be when I die, if I don't tell them otherwise.

The state wouldnt make the opinion for you. The situation is exactly the same as an opt-in system just the default is reversed.

But an opt-out system makes more sense since about 90% of people (in the UK) say they would be willing to donate their organs so therefore only 10% of people need to take action rather than 90%

[Khris]

Misj': I meant the second thing. I'm a donor and would never consider denying them to people who aren't donors themselves.
Unless there'd be an opt-out system. Because then I'd consider people who deliberately chose to let their stuff rot as selfish assholes and wouldn't mind excluding them from the lists.
Edit for clarification: if they are aware when opting out that they don't get organs themselves, of course

Dead bodies are way overrated, and if I had a say in it, I wouldn't mind replacing the whole theatric show on cemeteries with something else that wouldn't require people to drive around to 'speak' with their dead friends/relatives.
(Of course this is a cultural process, not one person's decision. In the place of cemeteries, I'd put a Burger King, or homes for the homeless.)

I think it's a great idea to include that information on the ID or driver's license so people are made aware of the possibility to donate their stuff.