Organ Donation

[Misj']

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.

While I can understand the argument that those who are fundamentally against donating their own organs yet still want to be on the receiving end should we way down the list (whether I agree with the argument or not in not up to discussion here), I do think that my case is different, because I'm not against organ donation. I just don't agree with the current system and thus can't support it. I agree with organ donation (in general)

ps. Just for the record: I've now got dibs on Calin's computer and his heart.
pps. I don't even know what kind of criteria I would want a recipient to fulfil. I know it's not religious or other world views, race, talent, money, fame, influence, and the like. I just somehow feel that if someone inherits my body-debris it should be someone who - in some way - makes me proud (even though I'm not there to see it...so it doesn't really make me proud, but you get what I mean). It may not be a (fully) rational argument, but in the end I decided not to be a donor as long as the current system exists...but it was a decision I didn't make lightly.
ppps. Yet somehow I don't really care about people cutting open my body when I'm dead. I don't know why that doesn't bother me.
ppps. I've almost reached my AGS-post-quotum for this month...so I'll probably be silent again for a while.

[Ryan Timothy B]

If you want to be an organ donor, good for you. But if you feel that you should have the right to make demands about the organ recipient (being eg. a donor himself) then you should be on my side and decide that within the current system you can't be an organ donor (upon death) at all.

I'm super confused by this, Misj'.  Are you actually saying that you would like to selectively choose that the only people who get the organs from your dead body must also be organ donors?

If that's correct, all I can say is wow.  I understand it, sorta.  But you do realize that some people in life are actually born with the shit end of the stick when it comes to health, right?  Some people just have organs that can barely hold themselves together, or just bad health in general.  If you were in their body, would you sign up for organ donation so some poor bastard MIGHT get your faulty body parts? (I'm speaking of organ donation, not donating their body to research)

Edit: Obviously there are other things than just internal organs that their body can be useful for.  Skin, cornea, etc, fun stuff like that.
But like Calin said, I'd rather save a life no matter who it may end up being, a selfish non donor or not.  The odds of the person in need of an organ actually matching your blood/body/whatever, and you dying in the same area at the same time they need it can be pretty slim sometimes, there is no sense in narrowing the list down even further.

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

Now this is different, I could easily agree with this.

[Misj']

I'm super confused by this, Misj'.  Are you actually saying that you would like to selectively choose that the only people who get the organs from your dead body must also be organ donors?

No...exactly the opposite actually: I'm saying that I'm against the people who propagate that only those two are organ donors are allowed to be organ recipients...which is an idea quite heavily propagated (by some) in the Netherlands.

I AM saying, however, that my personal reason for not being a donor is, because in the current system won't let me have a say in (cannot give criteria for) who will get my organs...'who' being general, not an individual. This is - however - a very personal reason, and it's not something I want to convince others of. It's just my personal stance on the subject.

I'm also saying that those who propagate the former (only donors may be recipients) exclude me from being a donor because I don't fit their criteria...while the only reason why I don't fit any criteria in the first place is because I'm not allowed to set them myself. 



I thought I've been quite clear on that point throughout my posts...earlier in the same post I clearly wrote: I consider people who became organ donors (...) and than start to propagate that 'those who are not organ donors are not worthy as organ recipients' (...) to be completely wrong. (removed the part between brackets) - So I don't really understand the (super) confusion.

[Ryan Timothy B]

Yeah that's why I was super confused.  One post made it seem like you were against it, and another made it seem like you weren't. (I get confused easily)

Gotcha.

[Calin Leafshade]

exactly what criteria would you specify?

That the receipiant hadnt smoked or drank in excess? They dont give organs to those people anyway.

[Misj']

exactly what criteria would you specify?

To quote myself:

I don't even know what kind of criteria I would want a recipient to fulfil. I know it's not religious or other world views, race, talent, money, fame, influence, and the like.

--- I think this is a good moment for me to leave this discussion, because I really don't have anything to add that I didn't already write. Consequently, everything I'd write would be a repetition (or a somewhat logical conclusion/expansion) of what I wrote earlier, and hence will not add to anything. I think I've explained my point of view (and I don't feel like defending it), I think Calin explained his, as did Khris (and neither of them has to defend theirs in my opinion). I also think we have a lot of common ground, but disagree in some of the details and some of the consequences thereof. Personally I think that's a good thing. ---

[Sam.]

Interesting legal point on this, the only way you can legally (at least in the UK/Australia and I'm fairly sure the U.S. pending some jurisprudence), once you are dead, make sure that your body does anything within your wishes is by donating it to science (or slightly more bizarrely, having it stuffed). As the person who owned the body has died, the body belongs to noone and as is therefore, not property and does not legally exist. Graverobbing is a crime but stealing body parts is not. Only if they are given PURPOSE i.e. science or medicine (or stuffing) do they get new owners and once again become an entity that can be legally controlled.

Interesting?

Personally I think keeping organs if you die is selfish and ridiculous, dead bodies do not need to be kept, they turn gross, can poison soil and become useless bits of wrapped up skeleton. Give as much of it away as possible, grind it up and plant a tree on it. 

[Evil]

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

A completely rhetorical question not directed at anyone: What if a rapist (or murderer, or terrorist, or...) fell ill while on trial? Would you be willing to donate an organ from your deceased person to them so they could receive justice? If not even in a sense of societal necessity, then purely for the grieving family members of the victim(s)?

[Calin Leafshade]

during trial they are innocent for all intents and purposes and therefore they get all the treatment anyone else would get.

[Khris]

It doesn't need to be during trial, does it?
What if he gets a life sentence and falls ill after a year in prison?

[Calin Leafshade]

He still deserves medical treatment. Otherwise you might as well have given him a death sentence.

[Ryan Timothy B]

Wouldn't prisoners be at the bottom of the list, or perhaps not at all?
I know from tv shows (I'm Canadian) that the US seem to have a list of what time you've registered. It runs down to the very minute.  But if a persons health suddenly worsens, they can be bumped up the list.  And honestly, I have no idea what it's like in Canada. 

[Blackthorne]

I'm on Kidney Dialysis, currently.  I have stage 5 End Stage Renal Disease, which means my kidneys are completely dead and I need a transplant or I spend the rest of my life on dialysis.  Dialysis sucks.  It drains the life out of me, and though it keeps me alive, sometimes I wish the quality of time I spend alive was better quality time.

I spend my days, waiting on the Organ Donation List - hoping that someday, a match for me will come in.  I don't have the luxury of sitting around saying "I'd deny an organ transplant" which is an easy thing to say when you don't require one.  Try saying that when you're offered the ultimatum of getting a transplant or accepting a quick imminent death.

I appreciate all who are Organ Donors - it's not an easy decision, and it's kind of morbid.  But I really feel strongly that it must be a CHOICE that the person chooses to give.  I wouldn't want anyone, dead or alive, to be forced into a decision that makes them uncomfortable.

Just remember, though, there are people out there waiting for organs.  Decent people, who have had bad luck.  Guys like you, who love adventure games and enjoy making them.  It's not always some useless degenerate who needs an organ, and honestly, with the hoops they make you jump through to get approved for the list (at least in America) most people waiting for organs are well prepared to care for them.  And they do requre a lot of care; one does not just get an organ stuffed in them and that is that.  You spend a lot of time visiting doctors offices, having checkups and taking a lot of required anti-rejection drugs everyday.  It's not some miracle cure, but it is a better form a treatment.  And often, it really is a gift - a gift of a better quality of life.

Bt

[HammerBlade]

I would choose death over being a kind of "zombie" basically. Really, my problem is that it is a dead body that is being used instead of the person being laid to rest.

It sounds like you're saying that personal identity lies within the body.  Assuming that's what you're saying, then in that case it definitely could be wrong to take apart a dead body, because that could be considered destroying a person.

However, people frequently don't associate their bodies with their personal identity.  If they were to, for example, lose an arm, they wouldn't doubt they're still themselves, even though they no longer have an arm attached to their bodies.  Thus, it isn't upsetting for such people to donate organs because they consider body parts to be separate from who they are.

Just food for thought.  Sorry in advance though if you've already heard this from a billion other folks.